Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

Andrew Cagney
2002-05-03T18:24:44Z

> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:13:31PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> >These are threading information packets. They are completely optional,
>> >and I believe that they are of an appropriate nature for the
>> >environments which support it; such systems generally:
>
>>
>> Optional or not, it needs to be reliable. You need to be able to run a
>> test cases 1000 times and have it pass 1000 times.
>
>
> I really do not see what is unreliable here. They're still ACKed...

Not necessarily.

What should happen if, at the same time as the target is creating /
sending an O packet, GDB sends a <BREAK>? The protocol spec says nothing.

I believe, to define this, one would end up specifying a new protocol.

In the mean time, the existing protocol remains ``synchronous''. GDB
sends a request, the target replies. At any time either GDB, xor the
target is in control.

--

Out of interest, does the n/x packet code in gdbserver, let go of a
created thread immediatly or does it wait until it has received the ack?

Andrew