From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12816 invoked by alias); 17 May 2011 13:21:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 12796 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2011 13:21:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 May 2011 13:21:05 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QMKCu-00025S-8c; Tue, 17 May 2011 09:21:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:21:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <201105171338.49226.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Tue, 17 May 2011 13:38:49 +0100) Subject: Re: [DOC/RFA] point stub implementers towards the vCont packet Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <201105171338.49226.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:38:49 +0100 > > vCont was added back in 2003 to overcome limitations of the > s/c/S/C/Hc packets, but we still see people implementing them. > > I'm hoping this helps prevent that further. > > Okay to apply? Yes, with a couple of gotchas: > +At a minimum, a stub is required to support the @samp{g}, @samp{G} "the @samp{g} and @samp{G} commands" is better. > +(step) @var{command}s. Stubs that support multi-threading targets > +should support the @samp{vCont} command. All other @var{command}s are > optional. There's no need to use @var here, as you use "command" as a literal word, and the relation to @var{command} in the packet being documented is clear. Thanks.