From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31062 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2004 18:44:42 -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 31055 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2004 18:44:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.111.177) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Jul 2004 18:44:42 -0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:43:21 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Stephen & Linda Smith'" , "'Andrew Cagney'" Cc: "'Kevin Buettner'" , Subject: RE: shared library support hookin the remote.c Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:05:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <40F57B9C.6020704@cox.net> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2004 18:43:21.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[701B9140:01C469D2] X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-owner On Behalf Of Stephen & Linda Smith > Sent: 14 July 2004 19:30 > There is one thing I don't understand about the F packet. How > does the > inferior know that it is OK to send the packet. From > everything that I > have read. Comunication is initiated by GDB and answered by the > inferior. I didn't know that the stub could initiate a > packet. I think that's exactly what happens when the inferior hits a breakpoint, isn't it? Gdb can't know that it's about to do that, so the stub is sending a spontaneous (in the sense of not reqested by gdb) status or expedited response packet. It occurs to me that "Send a gratuitious expedited response" might perhaps the answer to that guy's question who wanted to invalidate gdb's cached state. Assuming he's only after invalidating the regcache, that is. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....