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
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Paul_Koning at dell dot com, gdb at sourceware dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, pedro at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:54:22 +0300
- Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement
- References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> <uod4mytbo.fsf@gnu.org> <4889DF56.6070406@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:12:38 -0400
> From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
> CC: Paul_Koning@dell.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com
>
> >> You'll note the documentation says turning off acks may be desirable to reduce
> >> communication overhead *or* "for other reasons". In fact, it is the "other
> >> reasons" that motivated this patch. We are working on designing the extensions
> >> to the remote protocol to support nonstop mode, and we realized that we simply
> >> cannot do it in combination with using +/- acks on the asynchronous responses.
> >
> > Then please just say so in the docs.
>
> As you'll note from subsequent discussion, we decided to use another mechanism
> for non-stop mode, so it has no dependence on the noack mode patch any more.
> I'm not sure what else you think the docs for noack mode should say?
Perhaps nothing, now that the decision was to abandon the original
approach. But the principle remains: if there's some _real_ reason to
including a feature in GDB, let's state that reason in the docs,
instead of hiding it in some "etc."
> Incidentally, I am working on docs for non-stop mode now -- both the user-level
> changes, and the remote protocol pieces.
Thanks!