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: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:07:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B1E5451.2090403@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> <3B099713.8F689955@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00065.html

> 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".


Sorry, I'm lost here.  I expected the logic handling ``start requesting 
symbols'' and ``request next symbol'' to be using common logic.  Vis 
something like:

	if (qSymbol)
	  if (<address> == "" && <symbol> != "")
	    return "OK"; // oops symbol not found
	  if (<address> != "" && <symbol> != "")
	    table[<symbol>] = <address>;
	  return <name-of-next-unknown-symbol>

Andrew