Michael Snyder wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: >> On Sunday 06 September 2009 04:36:22, Michael Snyder wrote: >>> Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>>> From: Pedro Alves >>>>> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:44:13 +0100 >>>>> Cc: Michael Snyder , Jakob Engblom , Greg Law >>>>> >>>>> 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? Arrr, patch attached this time.