From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26872 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2004 22:47:48 -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 26863 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2004 22:47:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gizmo12ps.bigpond.com) (144.140.71.43) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Jun 2004 22:47:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 23326 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2004 22:47:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO psmam01.bigpond.com) (144.135.25.69) by gizmo12ps.bigpond.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 2004 22:47:43 -0000 Received: from cpe-203-51-247-11.qld.bigpond.net.au ([203.51.247.11]) by psmam01.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_4_2a 65/17452300) with SMTP id 17452300; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:47:43 +1000 Message-ID: <40D0CE14.8060607@neurizon.net> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:47:00 -0000 From: Steven Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Small problem with Remote Protocol register fetching. References: <40CEB176.1040904@neurizon.net> <40CF4569.3000404@redhat.com> <40CF972A.1080403@neurizon.net> <40D08DFC.6030607@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <40D08DFC.6030607@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00392.txt.bz2 Yes, the target was changed before the original post. It just pointed out a minor inconsistency, tis all. One that should be easy to remove either way. Steven Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hmm, you should be wanting to change your remote target :-) :-) > > By doing that you ensure that the remote-target interoperates with any > released GDBs. If you don't you ensure that at best your target > operates with only a not-yet-released mainline GDB. > > As for remote.c and the protocol, yes need to think of something. My > opinion is that, regardless, we need to change the spec to > ``lower-case @sc{hex}'' - to ensure that compatibility. > > Andrew > > >