This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Remote UDP support
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 08:39:25PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >A patch for this feature was supported a year or so ago, but never went
> >in.
>
> (lack of assignment the last time it was posted from memory).
Yep.
> >I had a need for this a couple of days ago, so I did it over from scratch;
> >it's much easier now than it was at the time. The name of ser-tcp.c is a
> >bit wrong after this patch; I can either rename the file to ser-net.c or
> >just update some comments to match. Got a preference? Otherwise OK?
>
> From memory, the last time this came up the conclusion was that:
I didn't see any of these conclusions when I looked. Oh well. None of
them were in the thread with the original patch or the discussion about
queuing it for 5.1.
> - It isn't at all reliable (rather than mostly reliable as across TCP or
> serial). The entire ``T'' stop packet can be lost and neither GDB, nor
> the target, would notice.
Certainly. I also see a comment about the G packet needing to fit in
one UDP packet, although I'm not 100% sure that's right.
> - it wasn't necessary - there are micro tcp implementations around that
> implement sufficient TCP for the remote protocol to work
Still bigger than a polled UDP implementation, and much more
complicated. Implementing a tiny UDP stack is simple! Sure, it isn't
reliable at all; so use it on small networks and be careful :)
> Check the archives (search for mark salter?).
You vastly overestimate ht:/Dig if you think that's possible. I really
want that program killed.
> One theory put forward was to have GDB print a banner(6) sized warning
> (and get confirmation) before accepting the option.
I have to admit, I don't see the point. A big warning in the
documentation, maybe, but such a confirmation query would drive me
crazy if I actually needed to use this regularly.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer