From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1068 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2006 14:28:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 1051 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2006 14:28:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (HELO sadr.equallogic.com) (66.155.203.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:28:07 +0000 Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2LES501018688 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:28:05 -0500 Received: from M31.equallogic.com (M31.equallogic.com [172.16.1.31]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id k2LES5fR018683; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:28:05 -0500 Received: from pkoning.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.169]) by M31.equallogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:28:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17440.3444.354136.447113@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:39:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: drow@false.org Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [remote] Checking for supported packets References: <20060314021526.GA802@nevyn.them.org> <20060321051221.GA15578@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:15:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz Daniel> wrote: >> I've been working, for the last couple of months, on a wide >> variety of projects that involve new remote protocol packets. I'm >> planning to submit each and every one of them; I've just been >> busy, and also some of them aren't quite fully baked yet. Daniel> ... >> Something like this: >> -> qPackets? >> <- qPackets,qPacketSize+,qOffsets-,qPart:available+,qC- >> >> "I support the qPacketSize and qPart:available queries, but don't >> bother probing for qOffsets or qC, they won't work". Daniel> Don't suppose anyone had time to look at this? Not to speak of, unfortunately... Daniel> I don't know if there's any active GDB maintainers, right Daniel> now, who are interested in the remote protocol. Or e.g. stub Daniel> developers who are interested, and reading this list. As I Daniel> said, I have a whole bundle of upcoming proposed additions to Daniel> the remote protocol; I do my best to design them Daniel> intelligently and compatibly, and I will document them Daniel> prettily and post them for review, but the benefit's much Daniel> lessened if there's no one interested in reviewing them :-) We're every day users of the remote protocol, and I've done some minor digging into it. So I'm interested. I've certainly noticed that the sensing of stub capabilities right now is rather messy and chatty. The specific example I ran into was the support of hardware watchpoints and/or breakpoints. paul