From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8177 invoked by alias); 3 May 2002 22:18:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8161 invoked from network); 3 May 2002 22:18:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 May 2002 22:18:51 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799A63DA9; Fri, 3 May 2002 18:18:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CD30CCB.1040908@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 15:18:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020429 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions References: <20020502022543.GA22594@nevyn.them.org> <3CD15D5A.7020308@cygnus.com> <20020502155203.GA12647@nevyn.them.org> <3CD16BC9.2010209@cygnus.com> <20020502191411.GB19130@nevyn.them.org> <3CD19DEB.2010803@cygnus.com> <20020502210908.GA25410@nevyn.them.org> <3CD2D5EC.5020708@cygnus.com> <20020503212803.GB27650@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 > > I see; the only reason this is not an issue for 'T' responses is that > the break should be ignored in that case. The consequences of ignoring the break are harmless. > I actually handle this > correctly for TCP, if I get an interrupt while I'm expecting an ACK. Careful. The behavour is undefined so there is nothing saying that your implementation is correct. > I don't know how this works on serial lines. The clobbers the > traffic in the other direction? Often a cntrl-c is sent instead of break. GDB can also NACK partial packets. If you go through enough cases you find gdb can lock up (until a timeout). > Right now, waits for the ACK; it was easier and I'm more concerned > about running threads than new threads. It would be more correct to > release the thread first, in my opinion, but that conflicts with > reporting "some threads stopped" to GDB. Depends which direction we > go... If you're holding onto the thread you're effectively synchronous. The exchanges: <- n -> + and <- T00 -> +$C#.. <- + are, only marginally different. Should all threads be halted during this exchange? I think that is a separate question. enjoy, Andrew