Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

Andrew Cagney
2003-09-03T23:41:31Z

> et cetera?
>
> Maybe allow:
> HtTID,TID,TIDs;0c

I don't think this case can arise. Well at least not immediatly. A
`hey we're thinking in this direction' comment wouldn't hurt though.

> [Is 0 a valid TID?]

GDB doesn't think it is (which can give targets grief :-/). However, it
could be a [sc] without the "0".

> Could we deprecate Hg/Hc in favor of this, to avoid specifying all the
> interactions?
>
> And is there any hope of fixing this in 6.0? :(((

Maybe 6.0.1.

Hmm, why are we even fighting with the H packet? The senario is GDB
telling the target to resume in more weird and more wonderful ways.

- single step a thread
- continue a thread
- step out of range a thread
- signal a thread
- continue or freeze remaining threads

can GDB simply grab a new letter and spec out it's real intent?

Andrew