Re: shared libraries and a remote target

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> Actually, some of my internal co-workers are so allergic to changes in gdbserver
> that I would rather do something in the patch. [Thinking out load].  Adding more
> overhead to the traffic over the wire cause a couple of other developers heartburn.  It
> would also mean writing code to do essentially the same thing as the *_command
> function because it already parses the string and then calls symbol_file_add.  Since calling
> that function isn't what is wanted from an architectural perspective, why don't I "copy" the
> code to remote.c (renaming the function in the process) and then then symfile patches
> won't be needed and the code should be about the same size.


Sorry to hear this.  Unfortunatly the GDB protocol is a public document 
and proposed changes are only accepted after careful public review.

Could you please post to ``GDB Discussion <gdb@sources.redhat.com>'' a 
RFC for the new packet.  Could you also include an example.  If you look 
through the archives you'll see that Michael Snyder recently did this 
for the qSymbol packet.

Also, would you be able to post a working example of the stub?

	Andrew