Re: [PATCH v2] Update the 'g' packet documentation

[Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>]

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> 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.

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.

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.

Tom