From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "J.T. Conklin" <jtc@RedBackNetworks.com>
To: gdb@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: breakpoint extension for remote protocol 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:30:00 -0000
Message-id: <199812112229.OAA25621@jtc.redbacknetworks.com>
References: <199812111958.LAA25479@jtc.redbacknetworks.com>
X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00192.html

> Although I noticed the parallelism of the existing commands g/G, m/M,
> and I recently proposed p to compliment P; I used B/D instead of b/B
> because inserting and removing breakpoints don't have quite the same
> type of symmetry as reading and writing memory or registers.  A read
> command doesn't change the state of the target, while removing a
> breakpoint certainly does.

FYI,

While re-reading the protocol spec described in remote.c, I discovered
the existing 'D' (detach) command, so I'm now using 'b' instead of 'D'
for removing break/watchpoints.

> One issue with 'b' is that it's used in the sparc* stubs to set the
> baud rate of the connection.  That code has been #ifdef'd out with 
> the comment "Disabled until we can unscrew this properly", so we may
> be able to simply junk that.


	--jtc

J.T. Conklin
RedBack Networks