From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13199 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 02:56:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13192 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 02:56:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 02:56:33 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765383C5D; Wed, 8 May 2002 22:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CD9E563.3000704@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020429 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote UDP support References: <20020508232636.GA10279@nevyn.them.org> <3CD9C53D.5060704@cygnus.com> <20020509005348.GA14040@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 > I didn't see any of these conclusions when I looked. Oh well. None of > them were in the thread with the original patch or the discussion about > queuing it for 5.1. Must be earlier. I'm also digging. >> - It isn't at all reliable (rather than mostly reliable as across TCP or >> serial). The entire ``T'' stop packet can be lost and neither GDB, nor >> the target, would notice. > > > Certainly. I also see a comment about the G packet needing to fit in > one UDP packet, although I'm not 100% sure that's right. I suspect the comment relates to a ``be nice'' to some TCP stacks, and possibly to the now removed packet sequence number code (never worked). >> - it wasn't necessary - there are micro tcp implementations around that >> implement sufficient TCP for the remote protocol to work > > > Still bigger than a polled UDP implementation, and much more > complicated. Implementing a tiny UDP stack is simple! Sure, it isn't > reliable at all; so use it on small networks and be careful :) >> One theory put forward was to have GDB print a banner(6) sized warning >> (and get confirmation) before accepting the option. > > > I have to admit, I don't see the point. A big warning in the > documentation, maybe, but such a confirmation query would drive me > crazy if I actually needed to use this regularly. That is the point! I don't want to be around when someone that (shock horror :-) fails to read the manual and then complains that the GDB remote protocol isn't reliable. What about a: set remote i-do-not-understand-gdb-remote-protocol-and-foolishly-think-udp-works-so-please-enable-it on option. Have you tried running the testsuite across UDP? enjoy, Andrew