From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19655 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2008 14:56:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 19646 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jan 2008 14:56:29 -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; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:56:09 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0DF98218; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:56:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD6B98214; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:56:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JKapj-00007e-Bk; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:56:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Small remote file transfer protocol adition Message-ID: <20080131145607.GA454@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org References: <479EAB6F.8040505@portugalmail.pt> <479F4456.1090306@portugalmail.pt> <20080129164334.GA1457@caradoc.them.org> <479F67BE.8040504@portugalmail.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <479F67BE.8040504@portugalmail.pt> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00360.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 05:51:58PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > Well, since you ask :-) I'd prefer my first suggestion, just > because it's simpler. No worries about buffer size > limits, and the message being truncated. If passing a message, > I'd have to be careful with what I'd say there, so it > doesn't confuse the user (strerror says one thing, native > error says something similar but not the same, possibly in > different locales). This probably means I'd just pass the error > number anyway. Yes, I see. I'm convinced. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery