From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-77668-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1997 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2011 17:04:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 1988 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2011 17:04:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 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) (74.125.121.67)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:04:43 +0000
Received: from kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.75])	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p0EH4dj7008427	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:04:40 -0800
Received: from qyj19 (qyj19.prod.google.com [10.241.83.83])	by kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p0EH38h6011474	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT)	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:04:37 -0800
Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so3126347qyj.17        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:04:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.63.195 with SMTP id c3mr846189qai.364.1295024677540; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.118.80 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:04:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110112201204.GB13164@redhat.com>
References: <4D272FF6.3070402@codesourcery.com>	<AANLkTinMZ6hchkv1h+H265Eu7+Zsb4GizJ2XA5-VUnEO@mail.gmail.com>	<y0m39p02807.fsf@fche.csb>	<AANLkTikyGPDAfsjwdWPmpjqXsg=Dyrz7SuQe2=LF+cwD@mail.gmail.com>	<20110110155413.GE17302@redhat.com>	<AANLkTi=WSW8snse3PaNZTYnax6Mo6+F=Pah6JKo8=B2R@mail.gmail.com>	<20110111233507.GD2331@adacore.com>	<20110111233750.GA13164@redhat.com>	<AANLkTikytwEGmpwo3ANxcfiJBSAWt4YgVKQOu82UH4nQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20110112201204.GB13164@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:04:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinj3OOd9S_UrX_-H5BWVXSaWKoG0uNuw6jPzfXB@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: duplicated code in gdb and gdbserver
From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>,        "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi, Doug -

Howdy.

> dje wrote:
>
>> [...] I think the remote protocol itself is getting old. =A0In days of
>> multiple threads, inferiors, and architectures, plus an expanding
>> feature set, ISTM IWBN to start over. =A0[...]
>
> Do you believe there might come to be a concensus on this point in the
> forseeable future?

Depends on the patch.

> (Questions I'd start with: Forgiving old age, what actual shortcomings
> are known? =A0Are they beyond the remote packet-extension mechanisms?
> Is there another suitable existing protocol? =A0Is there a champion
> really interested in designing / implementing such a thing?)

I'm happy to leave the result to what the building of the library(s)
comes up with.