From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-51937-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 21445 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2007 22:08:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 21436 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2007 22:08:09 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:08:07 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-244-58.inter.net.il [84.228.244.58]) 	by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id EAP46628 (AUTH halo1); 	Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:06:58 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:08:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ur6j7q8zh.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ukleinek@informatik.uni-freiburg.de,         jimb@codesourcery.com
In-reply-to: <20071103191822.GA17820@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Sat, 3 Nov 2007 15:18:22 -0400)
Subject: Re: [rfa] Clarify remote protocol RLE example
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20071103161956.GA7885@caradoc.them.org> <usl3nqhku.fsf@gnu.org> <20071103191822.GA17820@caradoc.them.org>
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: 2007-11/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 15:18:22 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ukleinek@informatik.uni-freiburg.de,
> 	Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
> 
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 09:01:21PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >  Response @var{data} can be run-length encoded to save space.
> >  Run-length encoding replaces runs of identical characters with the
> >  character @samp{*} followed by a repeat count.
> 
> How about "with an initial character, the character @samp{*}, and a
> repeat count"?  With that, I quite like your version.

How about

 Run-length encoding replaces runs of identical characters with a
 @samp{*} followed by a repeat count.

?

> > This part I simply don't understand.  What does it mean ``should not
> > be used''? what should be done instead? break the string into several
> > smaller ones?
> 
> May not be used (they have special syntactical meaning in the
> protocol).  So you need to stop the RLE string one character earlier,

It strikes me that it would be easier and more clear to say that runs
of 7 and 8 characters should be sent as 6+1 and 6+2, respectively.