From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Quality Quorum <qqi@world.std.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: remote nits
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:31:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.SGI.3.95.991214182927.22293B-100000@world.std.com>
References: <3856CC46.6DAF9750@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-q4/msg00510.html

On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Quality Quorum wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > 
> > > Quality Quorum wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ???????? As far as I understand  the document normal response to
> > > > Rcmd is a sequence of zero of more 'O' packets followed, by OK or 'ENN'.
> > >
> > > One of the specified return codes is:
> > >
> > >     reply OUTPUT
> > >       A command response with the hex encoded output string OUTPUT.
> > 
> > This one should be outlawed before it is too late, it simply does not
> > make any sense.
> 
> Sorry, to late.

Then it has to be depreciated right away - it is broken in too many
places and it is not going to ever work correctly anyway.

And again we can cover it be variable, say - 'brokenqrcmd' 

> Technically it is the ``OOUTPUT'' bit that shouldn't be
> there.  Only the qRcmd packet supports it.  However, I do see your
> point.
> 
> 	Andrew
> 

Thanks,

Aleksey