From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: fnasser@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: [ser-unix.c] Fix handling of baud rates Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <6480-Thu26Apr2001194506+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <3AE751A5.AE7633E4@redhat.com> <2110-Thu26Apr2001102549+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3AE82D73.78A375DE@redhat.com> <1659-Thu26Apr2001173526+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3AE83490.6F92F95A@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00247.html > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:45:36 -0400 > From: Fernando Nasser > > > > But as we are adding a warning(), why not just say: > > > "Illegal baud rate %d; using %d instead." > > > > Can you prompt for another value (after making sure this is an > > interactive session)? > > We already prompt for many things, but I believe we want to get rid of > these prompts outside the interpreters. It complicates the > interpreter<->libgdb protocol, I've heard. The idea is that idempotent > libgdb operations fail and the interpreter (after asking the user what > to do) retries them with the proper values. Yes, that makes sense. Is there any way that libgdb can give the interpreter an indication that it wants to prompt the user? > So, we would have to go with the error solution until that is fixed. > > Is that right? I'm not very experienced with debugging such boards, but it sounds that a failure would indeed be the best way out.