From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:57:00 -0000
Message-id: <3AFCA688.5060904@cygnus.com>
References: <3AFC20A5.700ACFAF@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00259.html

Michael,

sorry about this, but what does the current interaction look like? 
Looking at the code I think it is doing:

	-> qSumbol:<symbol-file>

	<- "" - unknown
	   "OK" - done
	   "qSymbol:<symbol>"

then:

	-> QSymbol:<value>:<symbol>
	or QSymbol::<symbol>

	<- "" unknown
	   "OK" - done
	   "qSymbol:<symbol>"

while the documentation suggests:

	-> qSymbSymbol:<symfile>
	et.al.

My understanding of the most recent discussion was that the interaction 
was going to be:

	-> qSymbol
	<- "" - unknown
	   "OK" - done
	   "qSymbol:<symbol>"

and then

	-> qSymbol:<value>:<symbol>
	<- same return values

because the symbol file wasn't, in its self, useful to the target.  The 
qSymbol without arguments indicated new symbols were available.

However, if you think the target should be notified of each new symbol 
file then I'd rather see protocol go back to ``[qQ]SymbolFile:<file>'' 
followed by ``[qQ]Symbol:<val>:<sym>'' rather than the very subtlely 
different ``QSymbol'' vs ``qSymbol''.

sorry about this,

	Andrew