From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25232 invoked by alias); 22 May 2018 02:53:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 25158 invoked by uid 89); 22 May 2018 02:53:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 May 2018 02:53:08 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F33921EF62; Mon, 21 May 2018 22:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] Handle "show remote memory-write-packet-size" when not connected To: Pedro Alves , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180516141830.16859-1-palves@redhat.com> <20180516141830.16859-9-palves@redhat.com> <28ff1dac-fa38-6e19-fd0e-b4aed7e1832f@ericsson.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <84722781-ca57-e9a6-ce34-a1c6cec6360b@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 03:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00520.txt.bz2 On 2018-05-21 03:47 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > Yeah, I think the command itself it pretty obscure/weird. > > "0" means "default packet size". I.e., whatever packet size > the remote can handle. And if you do > "set remote memory-write-packet fixed", then GDB picks > an arbitrary default... > I've spent a few hours today staring at this, trying to > come up with something reasonable-ish, and this is what > I came up with. I even caught a bug. I don't think it's worth > it to polish this much more, as this is a pretty obscure > command that most probably nobody uses nowadays. > > WDYT? This is completely reasonnable, thanks. Simon