GDB Remote protocol error codes

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@false.org
Sun Feb 15 23:26:00 GMT 2009


On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:37:10PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Even if GDB currently ignores the codes, it would be good to have a definition
> of what they *ought* to be, so should gdb be fixed to make use of them at
> sometime in the future, the kernel will be already correct.

It is basically impossible to do so without following the route Jim
Blandy took: a replacement error syntax.  Existing stubs use them
wildly inconsistently.

I'd need to see a description of what problem the patch you received
was fixing to say more - but I can't think of a place where GDB
changes behavior based on which number follows "E".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery



More information about the Gdb mailing list