GDB Remote protocol error codes

roel kluin
Mon Feb 16 09:10:00 GMT 2009

2009/2/16 Daniel Jacobowitz <>:
> 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".

There was no problem, I thought it looked odd and that's why I pointed
to it. Maybe we should drop the patch.


More information about the Gdb mailing list