[v2] Re: RFA/RFC: vCont for the remote protocol [doco]

[Andrew Cagney]

Looks good.  Can you send it as a formal proposal (as a protocol change) 
to gdb@, then give it a week?

Andrew

> -@item @code{v} --- reserved
> +@item @code{v} --- verbose packet prefix
>  
> -Reserved for future use.
> +Packets starting with @code{v} are identified by a multi-letter name,
> +up to the first @code{;} or @code{?} (or the end of the packet).

> +@item @code{vCont}[;@var{action}[@code{:}@var{tid}]]... --- extended resume
> +@cindex @code{vCont} packet
> +
> +Resume the inferior.  Different actions may be specified for each thread.
> +If an action is specified with no @var{tid}, then it is applied to any
> +threads that don't have a specific action specified; if no default action is
> +specified than other threads should remain stopped.  Multiple default
> +actions are an error.  Thread IDs are specified in hexadecimal.
> +Currently supported actions are:

Should it specify that no action is also an error?

> +@table @code
> +@item c
> +Continue
> +@item C@var{sig}
> +Continue with signal @var{sig}
> +@item s
> +Step
> +@item S@var{sig}
> +Step with signal @var{sig}
> +@end table
> +
> +The optional @var{addr} argument normally associated with these packets is
> +not supported in @code{vCont}.
> +
> +Reply:
> +@xref{Stop Reply Packets}, for the reply specifications.
> +
> +@item @code{vCont?} --- extended resume query
> +@cindex @code{vCont?} packet
> +
> +Query support for the @code{vCont} packet.
> +
> +Reply:
> +@table @samp
> +@item @code{vCont}[;@var{action}]...
> +The @code{vCont} packet is supported.  Each @var{action} is a supported
> +command in the @code{vCont} packet.

Hmm, yes good catch remembering to include ";".

> +@item empty

The convention:

	@item

is currently used for an empty packet.

> +The @code{vCont} packet is not supported.
> +@end table