From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10466 invoked by alias); 10 May 2002 15:18:07 -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 10450 invoked from network); 10 May 2002 15:18:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2002 15:18:05 -0000 Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (unknown [172.16.14.211]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E630B8036 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 11:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from fche@localhost) by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g4AFI4w10072; Fri, 10 May 2002 11:18:04 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: toenail.toronto.redhat.com: fche set sender to fche@redhat.com using -f To: 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> <3CDB5083.8030005@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3CDB5083.8030005@cygnus.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 cagney wrote: > [...] > I think there is a subtle difference between someone understanding > that ``UDP is unreliable'' and someone understanding that the remote > protocol doesn't work across UDP. > [...] It seems that this train of thought indicates a self-contradictory attitude. Either the remote protocol is "good enough" over udp, or it isn't. If on one hand you think it's good enough to be included within mainline gdb, then don't argue that it's not good enough to actually work. Besides, the failure scenarios described due to UDP can equally happen over other transports, due to failures on the host / target. It would be wiser to tighten up gdb's and targets' handling of such conditions (with more clever timeout and error handling, synchronization recovery) than focus so much on UDP. - FChE