This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 08:19:36PM -0400, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> My suggestion for dealing with the breakage was for the stub to send an
> out-of-band ^C back to GDB when it has something to report, rather than
> sending an actual stop reply asynchronously. Then GDB could
> (synchronously) poll the stub with an "eh, what's up?" packet, the stub
> could reply, the normal +/- acks wouldn't be any more broken than they are
> now, the stub could resend the ^C without any possibility of confusion if
> it thought GDB hadn't gotten it the first time, etc. I still think that's
> workable, but the reaction here was "let's not go there; let's just assume
> the connection is reliable". I think everyone else's brain had exploded
> by that point as well. ;-)
Hmm. I hadn't thought about the "can resend" bit. You're right. I
even have a design document and implementation lying around (from Jim
Blandy) for a new type of response which would work. Let's discuss
that separately.
Assuming it does not become a dependency, Paul, do you have any other
objection?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery