Remote Protocol: Z? packet proposal

Andrew Cagney ac131313@ges.redhat.com
Tue Aug 27 19:55:00 GMT 2002


> @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




More information about the Gdb mailing list