From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5470 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2002 19:58:18 -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 5448 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 19:58:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2002 19:58:16 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7913CAA; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D332957.70203@ges.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:02:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johan Rydberg Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote_rcmd References: <20020627035114.M1899@cockmaster.bredbandsbolaget.se> <3D31A763.7020904@ges.redhat.com> <20020714173945.GB30061@nevyn.them.org> <3D31B976.5080700@ges.redhat.com> <20020714180035.GA31167@nevyn.them.org> <3D31C2DF.3000708@ges.redhat.com> <20020715204119.G14830@cockmaster.bredbandsbolaget.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00337.txt.bz2 > On 2002.07.14 20:28 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > : > I think I wasn't clear in my question. qRcmd can send some O packets, > : > which are supposed to provide some ambiguous form of "output" from the > : > "console", and then one packet. What is supposed to go in > : > which? It doesn't make sense to me to limit this to one > : > packet if it is arbitrary output; it may simply be too large. On the > : > other hand I'm not sure I see why both O and are allowed. > > If I'm not mistaken, the "O"-packet is used for just transfering one > character, not a string. The ``O'' packet takes a string. > : Sorry, you've lost me. There are a number of choices and which is used > : is left to the implementor. Sequences like: > : > : <- O output > : <- O output > : <- OK > : and > : <- O output > : <- output > : and > : <- output > : and > : <- OK > : > : are all valid. To be honest, I've only seen targets use the last two. > : Typically the command response is so small that it can be safely > : squeesed into a single reply packet. > > Typically it can squeese into one packet, yes. But should the protocol > really put a limit on the output? Should it? Probably not (but it does). > regards > johan Andrew