From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18868 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2006 13:46:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 18854 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2006 13:46:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from potter.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:46:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 29213 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2006 13:46:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.189.145?) (nathan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 13 Jun 2006 13:46:33 -0000 Message-ID: <448EC18B.5090607@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:46:00 -0000 From: Nathan Sidwell User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8 (X11/20060502) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Remote "qSupported" features probe References: <20060612195313.GA11276@nevyn.them.org> <448EBF9C.6020509@codesourcery.com> <20060613134414.GA6112@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060613134414.GA6112@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:37:32PM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > >>Daniel, >> >>is there a reason that the qSupported uses a ':' as the first separator but >>';' for subsequent separators? It seems needlessly different. > > > I agree. But, that's what Jim added to the top of General Query Packets > as the convention: > > The name of a query or set packet should be separated from any > parameters by a `:'; the parameters themselves should be separated by > `,' or `;'. Stubs must be careful to match the full packet name, and > check for a separator or the end of the packet, in case two packet > names share a common prefix. New packets should not begin with `qC', > `qP', or `qL'(1). > > I don't feel too strongly about it. Do you think it should be changed? I don't mind. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery nathan@codesourcery.com :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk