From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5791 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2012 12:37:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 5700 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2012 12:37:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1ACb5ic012220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:37:06 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1ACb4bP023852; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:37:05 -0500 Message-ID: <4F350F70.5050902@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 6/8] Agent's capability References: <4F1D55D7.7030506@codesourcery.com> <4F1D68A2.2080503@codesourcery.com> <4F3427EF.10906@redhat.com> <4F350CB6.80404@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4F350CB6.80404@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00173.txt.bz2 On 02/10/2012 12:25 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 02/10/2012 04:09 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> That page is obsolete. We've been addressing those kinds of things with >> qSupported features. I won't stand in the way of this change, but I do >> wonder whether we shouldn't instead ask the agent about its features with >> a similar (or exactly the same) mechanism. > > qSupported is used for GDB to get the list of features remote stub > supports. However, agent can talk with GDB or GDBserver directly, so I > hope GDB and GDBserver can use the same interface to get agent's > capability. qSupported doesn't help here. ??? We have a way to sent commands to the agent, hence, "I do wonder whether we shouldn't instead ask the agent about its features with a similar (or exactly the same) mechanism.". Heck, the agent itself could speak RSP, so we could just have gdb or gdbserver forward it the tracepoint, breakpoint, etc packets. Bit flags only allow on/off, and we'll run out of bits at some point. A qSupported-like mechanism wouldn't have those issues. Just saying. -- Pedro Alves