From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30212 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2008 05:54:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 30195 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2008 05:54:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:54:23 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.112.15]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0K4L00790N2N5X00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:54:24 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:54:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement In-reply-to: <4889DF56.6070406@codesourcery.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Sandra Loosemore Cc: Paul_Koning@dell.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> <4889DF56.6070406@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: 2008-07/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:12:38 -0400 > From: Sandra Loosemore > CC: Paul_Koning@dell.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com > > >> You'll note the documentation says turning off acks may be desirable to reduce > >> communication overhead *or* "for other reasons". In fact, it is the "other > >> reasons" that motivated this patch. We are working on designing the extensions > >> to the remote protocol to support nonstop mode, and we realized that we simply > >> cannot do it in combination with using +/- acks on the asynchronous responses. > > > > Then please just say so in the docs. > > As you'll note from subsequent discussion, we decided to use another mechanism > for non-stop mode, so it has no dependence on the noack mode patch any more. > I'm not sure what else you think the docs for noack mode should say? Perhaps nothing, now that the decision was to abandon the original approach. But the principle remains: if there's some _real_ reason to including a feature in GDB, let's state that reason in the docs, instead of hiding it in some "etc." > Incidentally, I am working on docs for non-stop mode now -- both the user-level > changes, and the remote protocol pieces. Thanks!