From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24619 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2006 13:59:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 24607 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Mar 2006 13:59:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:59:01 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FPK9T-0007C2-2Y for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:58:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets Message-ID: <20060331135859.GA27522@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060314021526.GA802@nevyn.them.org> <20060321051221.GA15578@nevyn.them.org> <20060330215247.GA9062@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:54:02AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:52:47 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > Here's the actual proposal, in texinfo. I also have a tested > > implementation of this, which I will not post right away; I'd > > like feedback on the interface first, if anyone has comments. > > Should I restrain from commenting on the documentation itself for now? Up to you; I think such comments will be more useful later, but if you offer them now, I'll fix them now :-) > > +The reply is one or more feature responses, or empty if this packet is > > +not supported. > > The notion of ``empty response'' is not described anywhere in the > manual, AFAICS. (Yes, this is not directly related to the changes you > are proposing, but I'd like this to be fixed as a side effect.) For any COMMAND not supported by the stub, an empty response (`$#00') should be returned. That way it is possible to extend the protocol. A newer GDB can tell if a packet is supported based on that response. This is the first result for searching for empty response; it's in the remote protocol Overview section. Is that sufficient? Everywhere else it's just described as "empty" or "empty reply". -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery