Remote Protocol: Z? packet proposal
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@mvista.com
Tue Aug 27 20:48:00 GMT 2002
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:54:44PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >@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).
They're completely unstandardized, as far as I can tell. Every
Unix-alike I've used in years has the same numbers for a couple of
standard signals, but Irix and Linux/i386 have vastly different
numberings.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
More information about the Gdb
mailing list