From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22851 invoked by alias); 10 May 2002 20:54:17 -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 22762 invoked from network); 10 May 2002 20:54:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2002 20:54:17 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F5D3DEC; Fri, 10 May 2002 16:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CDC337D.4050407@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:54:00 -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: "Frank Ch. Eigler" 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> <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> <3CDB5083.8030005@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 > cagney wrote: > > >> [...] >> 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. >> [...] > > > It seems that this train of thought indicates a self-contradictory > attitude. Either the remote protocol is "good enough" over udp, or it > isn't. If on one hand you think it's good enough to be included > within mainline gdb, then don't argue that it's not good enough to > actually work. Not really. UDP across the loopback interface is 100% reliable. Across cheap overloaded thin-wire definitly isn't. A judgement call regarding suitability is required, however the user making the decision needs to be fully informed. Andrew