From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10119 invoked by alias); 10 May 2002 03:51:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10112 invoked from network); 10 May 2002 03:51:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2002 03:51:41 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id 3F3785EA11; Thu, 9 May 2002 22:51:40 -0500 (EST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote UDP support References: <20020508232636.GA10279@nevyn.them.org> <3CD9C53D.5060704@cygnus.com> <20020509005348.GA14040@nevyn.them.org> <3CD9E563.3000704@cygnus.com> <20020509030123.GA7864@nevyn.them.org> <3CDABEB1.5008A502@redhat.com> <20020509184410.GA28420@nevyn.them.org> <3CDAE78A.7080508@cygnus.com> <20020509212046.GA3964@nevyn.them.org> <3CDAF7B7.3020904@cygnus.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 20:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3CDAF7B7.3020904@cygnus.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > > On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 05:18:02PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >> >Andrew, would you be satisfied with a warning in the manual and a > >> >warning in 'help target remote'? > > > >> No. I think it need to be in the users face. I don't think GDB > >> should silently let the user to use a broken mechanism. > > I really don't agree, but your call. Could I at least persuade you > > down to a one-line warning and no confirmation query? > > Requiring a separate confirmation just seems like a bad interface > > decision. > > It is relative. Adding a feature to GDB that will make GDB unreliable > and then failing to alert the user of the consequences is, I think, a > worse decision. The user is no longer able to depend on the debuger - > something critically important for someone debugging an embedded > application. > > Can you please update the patch to include a mechanism for querying > the user (just the first time) to confirm that they know and > understand that the mechanism is unreliable (including a brief > statement of known failure states). I really disagree with this. It's fine to print a one-line warning --- something that doesn't interrupt the user's train of thought. But people aren't going to type "target remote udp:..." by accident. Whenever I've said, "UDP isn't reliable!", nobody has ever reacted with shock --- "You're kidding! It isn't?" They always say, "Yes, I know, and I don't care."