Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> OK, I agree -- but it's in use, in the field.
> 
> I don't see this as a factor. If people want to use the version of the
> protocol that has been deployed, then they can stick with the debugger
> provided by the associated vendors. If they want to use the FSF GDB,
> then they have to migrate.  We're not suddenly dropping a feature that
> we used to support. If we look at Ada as an example, there are several
> features that AdaCore contributed which got redesigned as the result of
> the review process.  That meant that people using GPS (AdaCore's GUI)
> would have some compatibility issues with the FSF GDB for a while, until
> we enhanced GDB to recognize the way we implemented the given feature
> for the FSF. We have done that a few times, now.
> 
> Personally, after having had protocol compatibility issues between
> a vendor-supplied gdbserver and our GDB, putting a new packet only to
> remove it later is, IMO, asking for the same trouble again.

OK, thanks guys -- I'll remove it.
Revised patch attached.

Is this perchance the final issue?