From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id BcoBHItHFGZpTygAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 15:37:47 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (768-bit key; unprotected) header.d=tromey.com header.i=@tromey.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=AOP/YKmC; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 57F431E0C0; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:37:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402D91E030 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7CE3857C4F for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:37:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from omta040.useast.a.cloudfilter.net (omta040.useast.a.cloudfilter.net [44.202.169.39]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F377A3858D28 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:37:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F377A3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tromey.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org F377A3858D28 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=44.202.169.39 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712605049; cv=none; b=f/S7Urm4Xt9BcadIBJuVuDt6xeP5OVyGA1HV2xqc+YWF81bO0AYNuBl1G5xpCX6wIOL0VEk8JEFFCoy4trk9O3h5dzGYmhVX48CTCwTgEyOsfZwtbo3XIPB9oz3YXOFohnYpf+N4EqhzuY+CYbwwQMGhzbVOJwZBY2Rtsxogdm8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712605049; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KlRW/q01OyrjmL2DNnurBkEXHJZQDPl03wnaCpiypIc=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=C81FOzSYySQZ+rg2tR8k4VbX8dpqkFWBVzHLX6NC5EItS9xutHGi2C25OS1CsTSijdYIGnrIiFzYdrJkAzte3t29XZ49fffZNeaczsaXugNPZdBg5Oez2tZ673I+ixXJ5zDHWeP7l8vS88NedR0CZU/saBoFjeByT/EbjfskY+g= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from eig-obgw-5008a.ext.cloudfilter.net ([10.0.29.246]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPS id trDKrWciyl9dRtuo2rdhsc; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 19:37:26 +0000 Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPS id tuo0rUnN3U0uytuo1rdoL9; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 19:37:25 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=VYTxPkp9 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=66144775 a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:117 a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:17 a=raytVjVEu-sA:10 a=Qbun_eYptAEA:10 a=KKAkSRfTAAAA:8 a=Ld0wooplmUoTR0MxIsgA:9 a=cvBusfyB2V15izCimMoJ:22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References :Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=xhALzpgO66YVdVT0I72q/squn4EJYHVcFX8QakD4X3s=; b=AOP/YKmCn3EwVIHEil/wg5fZvs DuQX1BibLcIQqkaL3gWt5cc28rYyaA0OSL3R+ItUuVKT/w3rZGGUjmfyYIuanBtVFvBDRKEbzYLah mhfEl6w9h7YiHu/cDeRLxdy4o; Received: from 97-122-82-115.hlrn.qwest.net ([97.122.82.115]:49092 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rtuo0-000nuZ-19; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 13:37:24 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Gustavo Romero Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luis.machado@arm.com, thiago.bauermann@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] gdb: Document qMemTagCheckAddr packet References: <20240404064819.2848899-1-gustavo.romero@linaro.org> <20240404064819.2848899-8-gustavo.romero@linaro.org> X-Attribution: Tom Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 13:37:23 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20240404064819.2848899-8-gustavo.romero@linaro.org> (Gustavo Romero's message of "Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:48:19 +0000") Message-ID: <87msq363yk.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 97.122.82.115 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1rtuo0-000nuZ-19 X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 97-122-82-115.hlrn.qwest.net (murgatroyd) [97.122.82.115]:49092 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 2 X-Org: HG=bhshared;ORG=bluehost; X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfHT3x0LsLN5QV3xhM3GelFLiGBWQJb44vSgAopMAtnbDAhaXN+BBsK4PGMIs0Z8gKU1MdHlWXdPFSfW/TXS6JFCeeo0wSpJm8qF/6HCWKKlICWzaVhT2 m/xPvlG2IK+uYp1JlN1omGGgMKCVC0vDJvMn9wk1RLJWJYw5M7gc7kG06B6VocJGZWLPxiNa1FPcUhWuzMFghqkKLSv4ipagDPk= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3015.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org >>>>> "Gustavo" == Gustavo Romero writes: Gustavo> +@item @w{} Gustavo> +An empty reply indicates that @samp{qMemTagCheckAddr} is not supported by the Gustavo> +stub. This situation should not occur because @value{GDBN} will only send this Gustavo> +packet if the stub has advertised support for memory tagging check via the Gustavo> +@samp{memory-tagging-check-addr} feature in @samp{qSupported}. Is querying really needed in this case? Like, if there is some user feature that requires knowing whether this work before ever trying it, then I guess that would be a good justification. In other cases, it seems to me that simply trying to use a packet is better than a qSupported response; or at least I don't know why it wouldn't be. Tom