From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:30:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B099713.8F689955@cygnus.com>
References: <3AFC20A5.700ACFAF@cygnus.com> <3AFCA688.5060904@cygnus.com> <3B002163.D17BFA0E@cygnus.com> <3B004215.5040502@cygnus.com> <3B004F51.4C9DC055@cygnus.com> <3B049A7C.1040306@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00406.html

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > Are you saying that there is going to need to be an extra parameter (the
> >> shared library name) added to the target->gdb symbol request on Solaris?
> >
> >
> > No, I'm saying it could potentially be useful to pass back the filename.
> > Not that I think it is necessary.  The underlying mechanism that would
> > use this method on Solaris has a symbol-file-name argument.  We don't
> > currently use it.  Someday we might.  Just keeping the option open.
> 
> In that case I'd prefer at this point to leave the the symbol-file
> passing out.  Instead just stick to a single simple qSymbol packet.  The
> behavour would be:
> 
>         To start a transaction sequence:
> 
>                 -> qSymbol
> 
>         It could even be:
> 
>                 -> qSymbol::
> 
>         If you want simplicity and consistency.
> 
>         The reply would be as you proposed:
> 
>                 <- ""
>                         Not recognized
>                 <- "OK"
>                         Recognized but not now
>                 <- <the-I-want-a-symbol-address>
>                         As you've described
> 
>         From then on it is:
> 
>                 -> qSymbol:<addr>:<symbol>
> 
> I don't think it is a good idea to try to include a mechanism for
> passing back and forth the name of an object file until there is a
> demonstrated need for such a feature.
> 
> The reason for this is that, in the past GDB has incorporated what look
> like very reasonable idea's only to find that, when someone uses them,
> they are insufficient.

Andrew, if I have to change the QSymbol:value:name message from a
Q to a q, it is going to cause me non-trivial grief and code rewriting.
Are you going to insist on this?  To me it seems like a "set" message,
not a "query" message.  It is telling the target that symbol <name>
has value <value>, not asking the target something.

I need the first message that opens the dialogue to be unambiguously
unique, so that I know that I have to request the _first_ unknown
symbol, rather than the _next_ unknown symbol.  I don't want the
message that says "start requesting symbols" to be the same as the
message that says "here's your next symbol, and by the way you may
request another".

Michael