From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13033 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2016 11:58:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 13018 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2016 11:58:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=theyve, they've, sends X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:58:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28DBA3D95A; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uB2BwbmK015441; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 06:58:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFA] Small improvements to the remote protocol manual To: Tom Tromey References: <1473819514-18403-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <87eg4mrsvg.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <7ffc09bc-d59c-e295-ec1d-c489f8d490a4@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87eg4mrsvg.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 On 09/14/2016 11:58 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Another oddity I noticed is that it's unclear what a client ought to do > if a stub sends a notification that it doesn't understand. The idea so far was that that shouldn't happen, so it's undefined. The client should be able to tell whether a client supports some feature that requires some notification, based on the initial qSupported negotiation, or on some mode (such as non-stop) being explicitly activated by the client. > The ACK for > a notification depends on the contents (which implies that they've been > understood), and there doesn't seem to be a general notification NAK. I > think this might be a useful addition. Thanks, Pedro Alves