This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
Pedro> A Friday 11 July 2008 16:53:46, Paul Koning wrote:
>> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
Daniel> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:10:47PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Agreed. Telnet to a terminal server that feeds a UART based
>> target stub is common practice.
Pedro> Ack, we're all in sync.
>> TCP at both ends with datagrams in between is too weird to
>> consider.
Pedro> Not weird at all, and it is safe. It doesn't matter what you
Pedro> have in the middle as long as both ends have tcp.
You're probably thinking about end to end TCP over a datagram cloud.
That works, of course, that's the Internet. I was talking about TCP
from A to B, raw UART B to C, TCP from C to D. TCP wouldn't be
helping you detect or correct data loss on the B to C path, and that
means you'd need application layer acks (as in the current remote GDB
protocol) for that case. But that's a topology that makes no sense to
me and I wouldn't expect ever to see.
paul