Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> Michael,
> 
> sorry about this, but what does the current interaction look like?
> Looking at the code I think it is doing:
> 
>         -> qSumbol:<symbol-file>

Here I assume you mean "qSymbol"...

> 
>         <- "" - 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.

And here I assume you also mean "qSymbol".
Therefore I don't understand your question.
You seem to be suggesting that the documentation is different
from what you think the code is doing?  But your two examples
look to me to be identical except for what I assume are typos.

> 
> My understanding of the most recent discussion was that the interaction
> was going to be:
> 
>         -> qSymbol
>         <- "" - unknown
>            "OK" - done
>            "qSymbol:<symbol>"

I understood you to suggest that "qSymbol" was a more logical string
than "qSharedObject", but I did not understand you to be saying that
I should omit the object filename.  I'd like to keep it, against the
possibility of future need.  There is a use that I could have made with
it, I simply postponed doing so.  Others might have other uses for it, 
especially if it included the full path.

> 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.

The symbol file could be useful to the target.  For instance, we could
specify to GDB which symbol file was to be used for the lookup.  This
would be consistent with the usage in the original thread-db spec from Sun.

> 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''.

I'll be glad to go back to that syntax.