Re: [PATCH] Add 'reverse' capability query to remote protocol (qSupported).

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Sunday 06 September 2009 04:36:22, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:44:13 +0100
>>>> Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>,  Jakob Engblom <jakob@virtutech.com>,  Greg Law <glaw@undo-software.com>
>>>>
>>>> Your patch also needs docs and NEWS entries, BTW.
>>> And a patch for the manual documenting the new packets, no?
>> New diff incorporating comments and adding docs and NEWS.
> 
> What about the i18n comments?

Oof, sorry, forgot.  You just mean the two error msgs, right?
See revised diff.

> What about the vCont (the one about not sending vcont
> if requesting a reverse resume) comments?

Are you sure?  I guess, like you, I hoped it would eventually
be added.  Works fine as it is, it probes and fails, but if
you want it, ok...  added below.

I have one final question to raise.

You may notice (though nobody has commented), that I made the
two new supported-probed-packets (bs and bc) default to "enabled".

This sort of defeats the purpose (if the purpose is that we can
decide whether to run a testsuite on a remote target) -- but I
was just reluctant to default them to "disabled", because it
would mean that anybody with a deployed target that doesn't yet
support the new "qSupported" probe would have to make his users
enable them by hand.

(why I cc:ed Jakob and Greg.)

So now that I've mentioned it, what do you think?
Enabled, or disabled by default?