From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11429 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 20:12:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 11417 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 20:12:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:12:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0CKC6v7023950 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:12:06 -0500 Received: from fche.csb (vpn-8-67.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.8.67]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0CKC6Tp009987; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:12:06 -0500 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id 4A29B58122; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:12:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:48:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Doug Evans Cc: Joel Brobecker , Yao Qi , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: duplicated code in gdb and gdbserver Message-ID: <20110112201204.GB13164@redhat.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/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00277.txt.bz2 Hi, Doug - dje wrote: > [...] 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. [...] Do you believe there might come to be a concensus on this point in the forseeable future? (Questions I'd start with: Forgiving old age, what actual shortcomings are known? Are they beyond the remote packet-extension mechanisms? Is there another suitable existing protocol? Is there a champion really interested in designing / implementing such a thing?) - FChE