From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14807 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2009 21:03:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 14799 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2009 21:03:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_22,SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:03:23 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD5413452; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9DBCD95B; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AA96926.1070208@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:03:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakob Engblom CC: 'Greg Law' , 'Pedro Alves' , 'Eli Zaretskii' , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add 'reverse' capability query to remote protocol (qSupported). References: <4A9C2AD3.5070904@vmware.com> <837hwia96c.fsf@gnu.org> <4AA32E36.1020709@vmware.com> <200909072229.46597.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4AA586A3.20907@vmware.com> <4AA60A58.7080205@undo-software.com> <030201ca313a$9660f040$c322d0c0$@com> In-Reply-To: <030201ca313a$9660f040$c322d0c0$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 Jakob Engblom wrote: >>> [...] 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.) >> From our side we're fine with it defaulting to off and we'll add support >> for new probe (we haven't released anything yet, so it's fine). > > I agree that it makes sense to default to off. > > To support gdb7, we will need to update our side anyway. So there is no point in > trying to be nice. Better to fail early and fail often, as far as I am > concerned. So be it. Committed.