This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote symbol look-up (resubmission)
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:03:29 -0400
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <3AFC20A5.700ACFAF@cygnus.com> <3AFCA688.5060904@cygnus.com> <3B002163.D17BFA0E@cygnus.com> <3B004215.5040502@cygnus.com> <3B004F51.4C9DC055@cygnus.com> <3B049A7C.1040306@cygnus.com> <3B099713.8F689955@cygnus.com>
> Andrew, if I have to change the QSymbol:value:name message from a
> Q to a q, it is going to cause me non-trivial grief and code rewriting.
> Are you going to insist on this? To me it seems like a "set" message,
> not a "query" message. It is telling the target that symbol <name>
> has value <value>, not asking the target something.
>
> I need the first message that opens the dialogue to be unambiguously
> unique, so that I know that I have to request the _first_ unknown
> symbol, rather than the _next_ unknown symbol. I don't want the
> message that says "start requesting symbols" to be the same as the
> message that says "here's your next symbol, and by the way you may
> request another".
Sorry, I'm lost here. I expected the logic handling ``start requesting
symbols'' and ``request next symbol'' to be using common logic. Vis
something like:
if (qSymbol)
if (<address> == "" && <symbol> != "")
return "OK"; // oops symbol not found
if (<address> != "" && <symbol> != "")
table[<symbol>] = <address>;
return <name-of-next-unknown-symbol>
Andrew