From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14272 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 15:44:18 -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 14166 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 15:44:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 15:44:16 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793462B89; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F8430CF.5080704@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:44:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen & Linda Smith , Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb Subject: Re: Shared libraries and the solib interface References: <3F7BA58F.9050803@cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 > I am thinking of working on using writing a solib-remote.c interface file to implement loading of shared libraries. I believe that this is what Kevin suggested a couple of years ago, but I was too stuborn and dropped it. The item that I am confused about is how to have the remote box (which uses the current remote protocol) communicate back to the host the fact that a shared library has been loaded. Does anyone have suggestions? > > Andrew - are you the one I need to work with on protocol questions Yes. The thing to do is figure out what you want to transfer between the host/target and then I can help with the protocol. So you and Kevin are both clear on the process. The protocol change is first taken to the point where it "looks ok" and "appears to work". It is then posted to gdb@ as a formal proposal (given at least a week with allowances for holidays). This formalization step is important, it ensures that people (including me :-) don't shoe-horn poorly thought out protocol changes when no one is looking. You'll see DanielJ's vCont packet is now in that final review phase. Andrew