breakpoint extension for remote protocol, take II

[Andrew Cagney]

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