From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10036 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2004 14:57:31 -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 10027 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 14:57:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 14:57:30 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AwMx4-00063r-JY; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:57:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: cagney@gnu.org, roland@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: remote protocol support for TARGET_OBJECT_AUXV Message-ID: <20040226145726.GA13921@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , cagney@gnu.org, 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> <20040225160615.GA20953@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:15:00AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:06:15 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > > 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_ :) > > Sorry, I must be misunderstanding the issue. So, once again, could > someone please explain to my confused self what is the meaning of "NN" > in "ENN"? Theoretically, it ought to be an error code. i.e. it ought to tell GDB what has gone wrong. But GDB doesn't interpret the error code. I just skimmed remote.c; in some places it checks for starts-with-E; in some it checks for 'E' and length 3; in some it checks for 'E' and length 3 and digits; in some it checks for 'E' and length 3 and hex digits. The last is, I think, correct. In any case, you're right that it ought to be corrected. I'm not going to correct it to the full extent of defining error codes, but I will make it return E01 for all errors instead of ENN; that should fix a bug I noticed yesterday. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer