Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

Andrew Cagney
2003-09-22T03:02:46Z

>> p:REG:VALUE
>
>
> What would that mean, anyway? Since there's no clear thread we're
> talking about... it could be p:TID:REG:VALUE but I don't see the use :)

I do: Don't write anything back until the continue, or a flush vis:

vCont;p:TID:<PC>=ADDR,<NPC>=ADDR;s:TID;c

> Right, something like that. As above I guess it would be C:04 instead
> of CO4.
>
> I didn't want to take x because of the logical parallel to X. How
> about picking a prefix for all new "long" commands? I was going to use
> v for "verbose".

Ah! Sounds good, doesn't actually mean anything ... :-)

> I'll give this a whirl this week.

Andrew