From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29610 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 19:04:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 29548 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 19:04:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:04:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81B22BABE1; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fds8lVOPAwT5; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD892BABDD; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:04:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 329751459AD; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:04:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Yao Qi , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: duplicated code in gdb and gdbserver Message-ID: <20110112190407.GE2504@adacore.com> References: <4D272FF6.3070402@codesourcery.com> <20110110155413.GE17302@redhat.com> <20110111233507.GD2331@adacore.com> <20110111233750.GA13164@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-01/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 > I think the remote protocol itself is getting old. > In days of multiple threads, inferiors, and architectures, plus an > expanding feature set, ISTM IWBN to start over. We can still support > the remote protocol for however long is appropriate of course. I can > imagine the remote protocol being (at least mostly) a degenerate case > of its successor. I don't really have a strong opinion about this. Something to addo to the discussion though: I know that many problems probes talk the remote protocol in order to be used from GDB. I don't see that supporting 2 protocols to be an insurmountable problem... -- Joel