From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32321 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2004 16:06:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32305 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 16:06:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 16:06:19 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1Aw1Y7-0008Lh-A0; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:06:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Eli Zaretskii , roland@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: remote protocol support for TARGET_OBJECT_AUXV Message-ID: <20040225160615.GA20953@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , roland@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200402242321.i1ONLTPE001897@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20040225143415.GA18298@nevyn.them.org> <9003-Wed25Feb2004171540+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <403CC515.4090201@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <403CC515.4090201@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00364.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:34:16 -0500 > >>>From: Daniel Jacobowitz > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> Does anybody know what's the story here, why ENN is printed and what > >>>>> it should be? Is this perhaps a bug? > >> > >>> > >>>It predates my work with gdbserver. My guess is that someone saw ENN > >>>in the manual, realized that GDB didn't parse the error numbers to do > >>>anything useful, and decided not to bother coming up with some. > > > > > >If so, I think we should simply remove the ENN thing (and update the > >docs accordingly). It doesn't make sense, IMHO, to print a string > >that has no useful meaning. > > Er, no. "Enn" as a reply packet is a fundamental part of the protocol > and can't be removed. Whats lacking is the formal specification of its > contents. For the moment I'd leave that part of roland's doco as is. Yeah, I agree. Eli, it does have a useful meaning: it means that an error occured. It just neglects to tell us _what_ :) -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer