From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6556 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 17:54:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 6537 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 17:54:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:54:30 +0000 Received: from kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.82]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p0CHsS9l032558 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:54:28 -0800 Received: from qyl38 (qyl38.prod.google.com [10.241.83.230]) by kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p0CHs7LV019370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:54:26 -0800 Received: by qyl38 with SMTP id 38so1730232qyl.18 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:54:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.11.83 with SMTP id s19mr995995qas.314.1294854866490; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.118.80 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:54:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4D272FF6.3070402@codesourcery.com> <20110110155413.GE17302@redhat.com> <20110111233507.GD2331@adacore.com> <20110111233750.GA13164@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: duplicated code in gdb and gdbserver From: Doug Evans To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Joel Brobecker , Yao Qi , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2011-01/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > I think the remote protocol itself is getting old. > In days of multiple threads, inferiors, and architectures, plus an > expanding feature set, ISTM IWBN to start over. Blech, sorry for the follow-up. I should add that these days packet size is often far less of an issue than latency. [I don't know if that materially affects the discussion, but I didn't want to leave it out.]