From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com (mail-wm1-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E0483858D33 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:10:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 2E0483858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id g6-20020a05600c310600b003e1f6dff952so4755175wmo.1 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:10:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+qJeWXZ3c8CJ48Zy57IGHp0IjlOsWui8qPdrHxDDRkk=; b=LcrYEdxo8Vqt1jqSEE2/6BzBY2AOGL5GG0H28VyC7oI/r1BhYuUzmZn6lym6tB1zRz ML8LAHwDYY2PQCCjR2EWM7YFnpaWQjiC4Yg+78eevX6vQNk5xoaW1wFVZsbUismnzchz Oj1VPGkHwVz8vYgeJ+CRZN+AYGm4AZZa4qQ6QG/DnwtTTdGnf1EqcgQkz/gtLW7NhERV X4iaGcFvRjivAaXs1GeFa/PFZ3z2EO2JpbqExAv8gAgvC598cBU+m81IYVvOlYACbjY6 kh9a5oOWoijyP/fYn1SK4wNmqegPkbPKTtkm7eqNW91eEfAdAJSgC1ujiRs6+Ayg10ql JIdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUxsverHse7qCOjkPCoPn3MmQMLZEBknXjtP0Y8tQTPpaR/cRVd NqsEgutOCoj3KJv7PCDmF09KP8mo7lrPsw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/9SljIsao1isA4489Uu2gvULPozHakyIOh7UGeo/GNHqa+zmMZz07wbWEXiNlzvrOHaLh1Rg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:16d3:b0:3e2:589:2502 with SMTP id l19-20020a05600c16d300b003e205892502mr4559345wmn.28.1676567440782; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:10:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f92b:9e00::1fe? ([2001:8a0:f92b:9e00::1fe]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4-20020a05600c024400b003e01493b136sm5857378wmj.43.2023.02.16.09.10.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:10:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Update the 'g' packet documentation To: Tom Tromey Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20230111183725.2902496-1-tromey@adacore.com> <533a8893-c0b2-ec5a-fa11-f83bf98f4429@palves.net> <87lem645yr.fsf@tromey.com> <87o7qfn2qy.fsf@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <459e115b-5dff-2e37-46aa-9e8e7495536a@palves.net> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:10:38 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87o7qfn2qy.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2023-01-30 9:15 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> Here, the new text still uses "collected", but lost the reference to trace frames. > Pedro> It seems to me that that will result in people not knowing what "collected" > Pedro> means in this context. > >>> Yeah, I wanted to get rid of the trace frame note, because it's >>> confusing -- 'x' can be sent any time, not just a trace frame. > > Pedro> Yeah, but then people won't know what "collected" here means. Also, in the normal > Pedro> case you shouldn't really end up with unavailable registers -- if some register > Pedro> really doesn't exist, then the target description should ideally not describe it. > > While I agree with that, it's also the case that tdep code can reject > such a description, and we ran into a case like this in the wild -- > where a gdbserver does not report a register, causing i386-tdep to > reject the description. However, at one point AdaCore had a port for > this target, and that port reported the register but sent back 'x' -- > which worked. Curious. It sounds like we made some register in a tdesc feature mandatory, even after the tdesc feature existed in previous releases? That shouldn't have happened. > > Also, I wanted to say, I think I misread your first reply. If I'd read > it correctly I would have rewritten the text. I'm sorry about that. No worries at all. > Pedro> How about this version of the patch? It combines your original patch with > Pedro> my suggestions, and also extends it further to describe the normal live target > Pedro> scenario and include a remark about just not including the register in the tdesc. > Pedro> (Note: I did not add an xref for the target description section at the end because > Pedro> there's already one in the preceding paragraph.) > > This sounds great. Thank you. Great, I'm going to merge it. Thanks, Pedro Alves