From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29964 invoked by alias); 13 May 2002 04:44:11 -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 29957 invoked from network); 13 May 2002 04:44:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 May 2002 04:44:11 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626B73E08; Mon, 13 May 2002 00:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CDF449F.7020300@cygnus.com> Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:44:00 -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: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote UDP support References: <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> <3CDD6D3E.90809@cygnus.com> <20020511213218.GA8246@nevyn.them.org> <3CDD94DB.8070409@cygnus.com> <20020513012154.GB17951@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00444.txt.bz2 > How's this look? I wasn't quite sure what to put in the text of the >> >warning. Also added one to the manual. > >> >> Problem is, its in the wrong place, and I suspect getting it into the >> right place - remote.c - is tricky. >> >> I think adding a FIXME hack to remote.c (search for serial_open) that >> checks for ``udp:'' and then print a warning is the most pratical. > > > I don't understand. Why hoist it up into remote.c, before each call to > serial_open? That just descends through serial_open to call net_open > and the warning would arrive at the same position; the warning is > specific to ser-tcp, and seems to belong there. Sorry, yes the rationale was a big bit vague :-( serial_open() provides a generic serial connection. Data that goes in one end, hopefully, comes out the other end - it doesn't promise to be reliable though. remote.c, on the other hand, makes certain assumptions about the properties of the SERIAL object it is using (only data overrun is possible, single character transfers are reliable, ...). Hence, I think remote.c should be the one reporting a potential problem. Besides, if someone were to implement a remote-udp.c the warning would be wrong :-) enjoy, Andrew