From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29042 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2004 15:17:30 -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 29034 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 15:17:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO necron.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.21) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 15:17:29 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.144.58]) by necron.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.4-GR) with ESMTP id ADY08135; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:15:27 GMT Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:17:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-Id: <9003-Wed25Feb2004171540+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: roland@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040225143415.GA18298@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:34:16 -0500) Subject: Re: remote protocol support for TARGET_OBJECT_AUXV Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200402242321.i1ONLTPE001897@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20040225143415.GA18298@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:34:16 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > Does anybody know what's the story here, why ENN is printed and what > > it should be? Is this perhaps a bug? > > It predates my work with gdbserver. My guess is that someone saw ENN > in the manual, realized that GDB didn't parse the error numbers to do > anything useful, and decided not to bother coming up with some. If so, I think we should simply remove the ENN thing (and update the docs accordingly). It doesn't make sense, IMHO, to print a string that has no useful meaning. Do you agree?