From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25033 invoked by alias); 10 May 2002 04:45:58 -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 25020 invoked from network); 10 May 2002 04:45:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2002 04:45:55 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77683DCA; Fri, 10 May 2002 00:45:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CDB5083.8030005@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:45:00 -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: Jim Blandy Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Michael Snyder , 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> <3CDABEB1.5008A502@redhat.com> <20020509184410.GA28420@nevyn.them.org> <3CDAE78A.7080508@cygnus.com> <20020509212046.GA3964@nevyn.them.org> <3CDAF7B7.3020904@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 > I really disagree with this. It's fine to print a one-line warning > --- something that doesn't interrupt the user's train of thought. But > people aren't going to type "target remote udp:..." by accident. > > Whenever I've said, "UDP isn't reliable!", nobody has ever reacted > with shock --- "You're kidding! It isn't?" They always say, "Yes, I > know, and I don't care." I think there is a subtle difference between someone understanding that ``UDP is unreliable'' and someone understanding that the remote protocol doesn't work across UDP. Take for instance, TFTP. Everyone knows that TFTP uses good old unreliable UDP but hey that still works, right? It just means that it has the occasional hickup. GDB's remote protocol can't come close to meeting even that expecation. Drop a packet and the session can die. BTW, anyone thought to try typing in ``tiny tcp stack'' in a search engine? enjoy, Andrew