From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2454 invoked by alias); 29 May 2003 02:32:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2447 invoked from network); 29 May 2003 02:32:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.mv.net) (199.125.85.40) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 May 2003 02:32:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 25043 invoked from network); 28 May 2003 22:32:02 -0400 Received: from xbnh-2-43.mv.com (HELO ppro) (207.22.38.43) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 28 May 2003 22:32:02 -0400 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 207.22.38.43 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Message-ID: <00d001c3258a$808525b0$c9d145cc@mrrmnh.adelphia.net> From: "Peter Reilley" To: "Torsten Mohr" , "gdb" References: <200305282248.48973.tmohr@s.netic.de> Subject: Re: GDB remote protocol on ethernet, timeout values Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 02:32:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 Torsten; There is a -l flag that lets you set the timeout. However, that code is commented out in the released version of the code. I had to re-enable the code for some timeout problems that I was having. Look in main.c Pete. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Torsten Mohr" To: "gdb" Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:48 PM Subject: GDB remote protocol on ethernet, timeout values Hi, is there any way to increase the timeout values for answers to packets that are sent over ethernet? One more thing: I wrote some code that understands DGB remote protocol. It is strange, when i additionally add a "sleep(2)" after receiving a packet, but don't change anything else in my code, insight complains about the answer to "qOffsets" -> "Text=00;Data=00;Bss=00". If there is no additional delay, all is fine. Insight complains about a missing ":". Best regards, Torsten.