From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17419 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2009 20:55:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 17409 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2009 20:55:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:55:30 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6FE10622; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:55:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04B91053D; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:55:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MWz8Q-0007bO-A1; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:55:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] small change for better error reporting in remote.c Message-ID: <20090731205526.GA29107@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4A70E268.6010401@vmware.com> <20090730213019.GB3955@caradoc.them.org> <4A735491.4040006@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A735491.4040006@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00771.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:31:13PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > You may not realize it, but you're asking for a much bigger change. > There is no struct packet_config for the 'G' packet. I'll have to > change set_registers_using_G from void to int, so that it can > return failure if the 'G' packet is unsupported. > > But I'll begin working on it, unles I hear "never mind" > from you... ;-) Bah... no, don't bother with that. What I actually wanted is just packet_check_result. Is that easier? :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery