From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22958 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2009 09:10:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 22942 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2009 09:10:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f161.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f161.google.com) (209.85.218.161) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:10:35 +0000 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so3173861bwz.0 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:10:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.126.69 with SMTP id b5mr3898161fas.34.1234775430972; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:10:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20090215232640.GA10428@caradoc.them.org> References: <20090212155327.GA12676@caradoc.them.org> <31615.1234451921@redhat.com> <16473.1234737430@redhat.com> <20090215232640.GA10428@caradoc.them.org> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <25e057c00902160110t5e275fddl6fc17673f85fefdb@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: GDB Remote protocol error codes From: roel kluin To: David Howells , gdb@sourceware.org, Roel Kluin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00126.txt.bz2 2009/2/16 Daniel Jacobowitz : > 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". There was no problem, I thought it looked odd and that's why I pointed to it. Maybe we should drop the patch. Roel