From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13300 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2008 17:52:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 13290 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jan 2008 17:52:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (HELO mu-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.134.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:05 +0000 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so1300922muf.0 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.174.20 with SMTP id w20mr12661085bue.28.1201629122074; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.0.101? ( [85.240.255.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u14sm1587803gvf.1.2008.01.29.09.52.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:52:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <479F67BE.8040504@portugalmail.pt> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Small remote file transfer protocol adition References: <479EAB6F.8040505@portugalmail.pt> <479F4456.1090306@portugalmail.pt> <20080129164334.GA1457@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080129164334.GA1457@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00313.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:20:54PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Would a patch that implements support for the attachment >> field in an error reply be accepted, in principle? >> I'll give it a try. > > Well, do you think it's a good idea? I can't see anything wrong with > it, but then, I just made it up. > 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. -- Pedro Alves