This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Remote Protocol: Z? packet proposal
@item @code{Z?}@code{,}@var{t}@code{,}@var{count} --- probe for breakpoint/watchpoint support @strong{(draft)}
@cindex @code{Z?} packet
@var{t} is type: see @ref{insert breakpoint or watchpoint
packet}. @var{count} is the number of breakpoints of type inserted
(including this one.)
Perhaphs
@var{t} is the breakpoint or watchpoint type (@pxref{insert breakpoint or watchpoint packet}). @var{count} is the total number of breakpoints/watchpoints of type @var{t} that need to be inserted.
Should it include that mysterious @var{other} parameter? If it isn't doing anything useful then no.
No other comments, I guess not. Time to turn it into a patch?
For the others, I think we should adopt (abuse) POSIX <errno.h> error numbers (assuming that POSIX has defined them, anywone?). The above are guesses (but UNIX like variants like to differ on what they mean :-/).
Checking ``The Open Group'' didn't turn up any errno.h values. Anyone
got another source? If none are forth comming, I guess we get to make
up our own (aka gdb/signal.h).
Hmm, if GDB does start recording / reporting these error numbers, it
will run into a problem where an old target sends back ``E83'' only to
have gdb mysteriously display ``No message of desired type''. Should a
target send GDB ``eNN'' for defined error numbers?
Andrew