This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets


> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:58:59 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
>      For any COMMAND not supported by the stub, an empty response
>   (`$#00') should be returned.  That way it is possible to extend the
>   protocol.  A newer GDB can tell if a packet is supported based on that
>   response.

Yes, I missed it; perhaps I was looking for "empty reply".

I'll add an index entry there.

> This is the first result for searching for empty response; it's in the
> remote protocol Overview section.  Is that sufficient?  Everywhere else
> it's just described as "empty" or "empty reply".

Let's make a point of saying ``empty response'' everywhere, okay?

I have one other comment to the text you posted:

> +@item qPacketInfo @r{[};@var{feature}@r{]}...
> +@cindex support packets, remote query
> +@cindex @samp{qPacketInfo} packet
> +Tell the remote target about features supported by @value{GDBN}, and
> +query it for features it supports.

I think we need here an index entry that mentions the word
``features''.  Observe how extensively you use it here and afterwards,
it's certainly something readers will try to search for when they are
looking for this description.

Btw, I'm not sure I understand how your suggestion fixes the
performance issue, can you explain?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]