From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73855 invoked by alias); 24 May 2018 17:53:15 -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 73842 invoked by uid 89); 24 May 2018 17:53:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1472 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 May 2018 17:53:13 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA911238D6; Thu, 24 May 2018 17:53:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unused-10-15-17-196.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.17.196]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0F9111AF17; Thu, 24 May 2018 17:53:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, fercerpav@gmail.com, sekiriki@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement IPv6 support for GDB/gdbserver References: <20180523185719.22832-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <8336yich5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87in7e6iw9.fsf@redhat.com> <83y3g9aycm.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 01:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83y3g9aycm.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 24 May 2018 18:04:57 +0300") Message-ID: <8736yh6iuy.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00654.txt.bz2 On Thursday, May 24 2018, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Sergio Durigan Junior >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, fercerpav@gmail.com, sekiriki@gmail.com >> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:40:06 -0400 >> >> The square brackets in this case don't mean that the HOST is optional. >> Rather, they *enclose* the hostname. As explained in the text above >> this, IPv6 introduced a new way to specify URLs: by enclosing them in >> square brackets. This is because the IPv6 separator (':') is the same >> as the resource (port) separator, which can cause confusion. Therefore, >> an IPv6 URL can have the form: >> >> [::1]:1234 > > Then perhaps we shouldn't advertise the bracket-less syntax at all, > and only say somewhere that it is accepted for backward compatibility? Well, the bracket-less syntax is still useful for when you want to provide IPv4 addresses. For example: target remote tcp:192.168.1.1:1234 is still a valid use, and: target remote tcp:[192.168.1.1]:1234 doesn't work/make sense. Therefore, I think it's still important to mention both syntaxes. >> Perhaps I shouldn't use @r{[} and @r{]}? > > Yes, @r{..} is definitely wrong in that case, you should drop it. Noted. I'll remove the @r{}. Thanks, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/