From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4102 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2013 07:07:46 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 4077 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2013 07:07:45 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,KHOP_THREADED,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO vigilia.groessler.org) (178.63.177.85) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:07:44 +0000 Received: from [10.23.1.38] (gaga.groessler.org [212.168.189.235]) by vigilia.groessler.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r6P7BDKE023257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51F0CEB0.5020509@groessler.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:07:00 -0000 From: Christian Groessler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130701 Icedove/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philippe Waroquiers CC: Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: remote packet size for memory read References: <51D29213.2050801@groessler.org> <51D292E7.9040900@groessler.org> <51D6D745.4040505@redhat.com> <1374706819.3495.12.camel@soleil> In-Reply-To: <1374706819.3495.12.camel@soleil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On 07/25/13 01:00, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 15:25 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 07/02/2013 09:44 AM, Christian Groessler wrote: >> >> I haven't analyzed the issue thoroughly, but it's quite plausible >> you're right. > Problem of GDB asking to read packetsize/2 has also be detected with > the Valgrind gdbserver, which expects that > nr_bytes_requested_in_m_packet*2 + 4 <= packetsize > but GDB only guarantees > nr_bytes_requested_in_m_packet*2 <= packetsize > > >> If you don't plan on contributing fixes, could you file (separate) bug >> reports for these, so they don't get lost? > Have these been filed ? Not seen ... Haven't come around to do it yet, sorry. I also wanted to check with valgrind before.... regards, chris