From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25067 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2007 23:54:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 25058 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2007 23:54:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:54:29 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2905F98348 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:54:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AA998347 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:54:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1ImeR9-000374-3u for gdb@sourceware.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:54:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: File transfer commands Message-ID: <20071029235427.GA11949@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20071029195510.GA18673@caradoc.them.org> <4053daab0710291639h36a1f976rbc3fc611337852@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4053daab0710291639h36a1f976rbc3fc611337852@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00293.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:39:15PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > > Are these the right commands for it? > Did you consider reusing the file-I/O remote protocol extension (with > host/target reversed)? > http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb_33.html#SEC681 I stayed as close to it as I could manage. The differences are unavoidable, though, because the File I/O bits store pathnames as address/length pairs in target memory. It's too silly (and sometimes too hard) to poke a filename into target memory just so the debug server can open it. My first draft used the same Fopen, Fwrite, etc. packets as the File I/O bits. Eventually I realized that that assigned two conflicting meanings to the F packet. If I'd tried it on a stub that supported both it would have gotten really hairy. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery