This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Extend "set cwd" to work on gdbserver
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:13:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Extend "set cwd" to work on gdbserver
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 9C497780CF
- References: <20170912042325.14927-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <20170928041046.5468-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <20170928041046.5468-4-sergiodj@redhat.com> <199971a4-0bfe-c2a2-ef81-5836a3ab22dc@redhat.com> <87poa9e3yg.fsf@redhat.com>
On 09/29/2017 07:48 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>>> +command, then an empty packet will be sent to the remote server, which
>>
>> Not an empty packet, and empty directory. Really-empty packets are
>> special in the remote protocol.
>>
>>> +will have no effect.
>>
>> WDYM will have no effect, when just above you've explained that empty
>> means reset ? I think you should just remove this paragraph starting
>> with "This packet is always transmitted". That's implementation
>> detail. GDB could for example not resend the packet if the value
>> didn't change between runs, no?
>
> What I tried to say is that if the user doesn't make use of the "set
> cwd" command in a GDB session, the packet will be transmitted anyway. I
> think I should have been clearer here.
>
> I will remove the paragraph as requested.
This part of the manual is a specification of the remote protocol
packets, not of how GDB implements them currently; it shouldn't
really talk about current GDB implementation details unless
it makes a real difference, because those details should be free
to change within the bounds of the specification.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves