From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30287 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2009 23:26:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 30279 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2009 23:26:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:26:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E0610A32; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:26:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5D6106D8; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:26:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LYqNk-0002mS-Nz; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:26:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Howells Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Roel Kluin Subject: Re: GDB Remote protocol error codes Message-ID: <20090215232640.GA10428@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Howells , gdb@sourceware.org, Roel Kluin References: <20090212155327.GA12676@caradoc.them.org> <31615.1234451921@redhat.com> <16473.1234737430@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16473.1234737430@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00125.txt.bz2 On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:37:10PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Even if GDB currently ignores the codes, it would be good to have a definition > of what they *ought* to be, so should gdb be fixed to make use of them at > sometime in the future, the kernel will be already correct. It is basically impossible to do so without following the route Jim Blandy took: a replacement error syntax. Existing stubs use them wildly inconsistently. I'd need to see a description of what problem the patch you received was fixing to say more - but I can't think of a place where GDB changes behavior based on which number follows "E". -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery