This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions



et cetera?

Maybe allow:
 HtTID,TID,TIDs;0c

I don't think this case can arise. Well at least not immediatly. A `hey we're thinking in this direction' comment wouldn't hurt though.


[Is 0 a valid TID?]

GDB doesn't think it is (which can give targets grief :-/). However, it could be a [sc] without the "0".


Could we deprecate Hg/Hc in favor of this, to avoid specifying all the
interactions?

And is there any hope of fixing this in 6.0? :(((

Maybe 6.0.1.


Hmm, why are we even fighting with the H packet? The senario is GDB telling the target to resume in more weird and more wonderful ways.

- single step a thread
- continue a thread
- step out of range a thread
- signal a thread
- continue or freeze remaining threads

can GDB simply grab a new letter and spec out it's real intent?

Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]