This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: breakpoint extension for remote protocol, take II
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>
- Subject: Re: breakpoint extension for remote protocol, take II
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:11:49 +1000
- CC: jtc@redback.com, gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions
- References: <199906142359.QAA06291@andros.cygnus.com>
Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> Date: 14 Jun 1999 16:47:32 -0700
> Lines: 39
>
> Bleh. But that's what the 'q' escape is for. IMO, all experimental
> protocol extensions should be using 'q'; likewise, GDB should never
> use 'q' itself.
>
> You mean like with qOffsets, that's been standardly issued by GDB for
> years? :-)
And QCrc. I've just had this one pointed out to me ....
> Actually, I don't ever remember hearing that 'q' was supposed to be
> experimental, and the existing docs don't seem to say so either. At
> this point we would have to pick a different char I think, and be very
> disciplined about not allowing any usages of it into the standard
> sources, so that it really can be for experimentation.
I'd like to seriously propose that:
[qQ][A-Z].*
be reserved for GDB's internal use while:
[qQ][a-z].*
be declared as available for custom jobs. In addition, custom packets
include a clearly reconisable identifier vis:
qcygnus.badhack
> In general, we have a sizeable documentation gap with the remote
> protocol; it's become so ubiquitous it ought to have its own RFC... :-)
Comming ...
Andrew