From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15984 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2009 22:37:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 15976 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2009 22:37:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:37:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1FMbDKi003470; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:37:13 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1FMbD8U024172; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:37:13 -0500 Received: from warthog.cambridge.redhat.com (kibblesnbits.boston.devel.redhat.com [10.16.60.12]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1FMbAKL019911; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:37:11 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=redhat.com) by warthog.cambridge.redhat.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LYpbq-0004Hi-H9; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:37:10 +0000 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20090212155327.GA12676@caradoc.them.org> References: <20090212155327.GA12676@caradoc.them.org> <31615.1234451921@redhat.com> To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, Roel Kluin Subject: Re: GDB Remote protocol error codes Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <16473.1234737430@redhat.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > I need to know this so that I can fix up the error returns made by the FRV > > arch gdbstub in the Linux kernel. > > Fix up relative to what? As Jeremy said, the numbers are mostly > ignored. I've been given a patch by Roel Kluin to fix the error numbers generated by the GDB stub in the FRV arch of the Linux kernel, but I've no real idea if what the patch does is correct, or whether what's there already is correct, or if neither is correct. Even if GDB currently ignores the codes, it would be good to have a definition of what they *ought* to be, so should gdb be fixed to make use of them at sometime in the future, the kernel will be already correct. David