From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2774 invoked by alias); 10 May 2006 21:14:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 2763 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2006 21:14:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from intranet.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.6) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 21:14:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 4183 invoked from network); 10 May 2006 21:13:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 10 May 2006 21:13:59 -0000 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Document conventions for terminating query/set packet names References: <20060503195650.GA13156@nevyn.them.org> <20060504015712.GA19810@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0605032313s69362babjcda4e60fe33f9d6e@mail.gmail.com> <20060504123755.GA29302@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0605041024u7c420707ie2fbff8a32ce32f0@mail.gmail.com> <20060505162544.GA31029@nevyn.them.org> <20060509204151.GA16263@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20060509204151.GA16263@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Tue, 9 May 2006 16:41:51 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:25:44PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: >> > All right. I think one of my subconscious motivations was that I >> > didn't like breaking a new feature for an older, deprecated feature. >> > But this isn't about "fairness" to features; it's about gettings >> > things working without breaking too much stuff. So I'll go along with >> > retiring the qL and qP prefixes. >> >> Thanks. Aside from Eli's question I'm fine with this. >> >> I'm wondering if we should mark the qC prefix "bad" too. I realize >> there's already qCRC: and I'm not suggesting we rename that. But of >> the two other stubs I checked today, both supported qC and neither >> checked that the C was at the end of the packet. >> >> Amusingly enough, one of them also supported qCRC:, and had a hack to >> check for that first. > > Jim, did you have any opinion on this? Otherwise, here's a proposed > patch. It recommends not starting new packets with qC, and clarifies > that stubs should check for the end of a packet even for packets > without a separator. No --- it looks good.