From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22469 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 18:37:00 -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 22462 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 18:36:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 18:36:57 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14432; Thu, 9 May 2002 11:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CDABEB1.5008A502@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:37:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Andrew Cagney , 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> <3CD9E563.3000704@cygnus.com> <20020509030123.GA7864@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:56:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>- 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: > > The only place I documented the syntax is in the manual. Good luck > finding it otherwise :) "help target remote"? > > 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? > > Have you tried running the testsuite with gdbserver on a remote > machine? :P Yes, it was certainly working some time (recently too, I think). Have you looked at testsuite/config/gdbserver.exp?