Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

Andrew Cagney
2002-05-02T16:39:37Z

I'm fairly sure that the archives have plenty of info on the ``O''
packet and why/how it should be replaced. One thread is ``gdb/remote -
I/O''.

enjoy,
Andrew

> No.
>>
>> Telling GDB of thread create/delete events is a good idea, but please,
>> do it synchronously (we've already got the ``O'' packet and that is bad
>> enough).
>>
>> Have you tried:
>> T00Thread....?
>> for the create event. (signal 0 is loosely defined as a non-event).
>
>
> That defeats the point of a fast thread debugging package. I do not
> want to stop threads at creation/death events; I put in quite a lot of
> work to avoid it. That scales very badly. The alternative was to just
> report all thread events at the next stop, but it is much more
> user-intuitive to do it immediately.

> Could you please explain why you are opposed to asynchronous
> notification? The 'O' packet doesn't seem to be "bad enough";
> doing output notification synchronously just seems silly.
>
> (Note that they're still ack'd, like standard remote packets. It's
> just that the target isn't stopped.)