Re: [RFA]: Remote protocol symbol lookup service.

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> Hmmm...  I suppose so, under the right set of assumptions.
> Such as that the target is not really stopped, and we do not
> need to restart it (as with the 'O' packet).
> 
> Andrew?  J.T.?  Anybody else have an opinion about letting GDB
> respond to new requests while in remote_wait?  Basically it's a
> switch statement, so it doesn't really have much impact on 
> performance or anything...  and of course I could abstract the
> code that responds to the symbol requests into a function.
> 
> Or, we could just wait and do this if there's ever a need to.
> For my application (the thread_db interface), this would not
> be useful.


See previous discussion about getting input working across the protocol. 
  The suggestion was:

	o	target stop with bogus signal 0

	o	gdb chat to target: qSymbol? qInput?

	o	gdb resume target

part of the chat could include a check qSymbol check.  A variation might 
have the target return a symbol request instead of a stop status.

	Andrew