Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 08:27:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >OK.  I think there's room to add it to something like this, so I'm not
> >gonna fret about it for now.
> >
> >
> >>>  Ht 'TID' 'DISPOSITION' [';' 'TID' 'DISPOSITION']... [';' 'DISPOSITION']
> >>>
> >>>'TID' should be a numeric thread ID, to affect one thread.
> >>>
> >>>'DISPOSITION' can be:
> >>>  's'
> >>>  'c'
> >>>  'C' 'SIGNAL'
> >
> >>
> >>I hope TID is decimal :-)
> 
> Hmm, I think it should be more LL1, which the above (and the remote 
> protocol :-) isn't.  Something like:
> 
> c:TID
> s:TID
> C:SIG:TID
> 
> that way someone can later add:
> 
> 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 :)

> Oh and TID is hex:
> 
>      if (strncmp (p, "thread", p1 - p) == 0)
>        {
>          p_temp = unpack_varlen_hex (++p1, &thread_num);
> 
> > by @code{REGISTER_RAW_SIZE}; @var{n...} = @samp{thread}, @var{r...} =
> > thread process ID, this is a hex integer; @var{n...} = (@samp{watch} |
> 
> :-(

:(

> >Heh, 'c', right.  Any objection to using decimal thread IDs, or would
> >you rather have 'TID' : 'DISPOSITION' ; ... ?
> >
> >
> >>>A final 'DISPOSITION' is applied to all threads not explicitly listed.
> >>>
> >>>Note that this Ht is a continue packet, not a select-thread packet.  So
> >>>Ht is not a good choice.
> >
> >>
> >>Yep.
> >
> >
> >How about, um, "vCont"?
> 
> As in:
> 
> 	vCont;s:456;C04:aba;c
> 
> or "n" for "next"
> 
> 	[n]ext;s:456;C04:aba;c
> 
> Main thing is that, the entire leading word must be matched.
> 
> The choice, I think, is: a, e, E, f, h, j, J, K, l, L, n, N, o, O, u, U, 
> v, V, w, x, y, Y.
> 
> (I should mark [eE] has do-not-use).

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".

I'll give this a whirl this week.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer