RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:13:31PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> >These are threading information packets.  They are completely optional,
>> >and I believe that they are of an appropriate nature for the
>> >environments which support it; such systems generally:
> 
>> 
>> Optional or not, it needs to be reliable.  You need to be able to run a 
>> test cases 1000 times and have it pass 1000 times.
> 
> 
> I really do not see what is unreliable here.  They're still ACKed...

Not necessarily.

What should happen if, at the same time as the target is creating / 
sending an O packet, GDB sends a <BREAK>?  The protocol spec says nothing.

I believe, to define this, one would end up specifying a new protocol.

In the mean time, the existing protocol remains ``synchronous''.  GDB 
sends a request, the target replies.  At any time either GDB, xor the 
target is in control.

--

Out of interest, does the n/x packet code in gdbserver, let go of a 
created thread immediatly or does it wait until it has received the ack?

Andrew