Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:54:02AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:52:47 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > Here's the actual proposal, in texinfo.  I also have a tested
> > implementation of this, which I will not post right away; I'd
> > like feedback on the interface first, if anyone has comments.
> 
> Should I restrain from commenting on the documentation itself for now?

Up to you; I think such comments will be more useful later, but if you
offer them now, I'll fix them now :-)

> > +The reply is one or more feature responses, or empty if this packet is
> > +not supported.
> 
> The notion of ``empty response'' is not described anywhere in the
> manual, AFAICS.  (Yes, this is not directly related to the changes you
> are proposing, but I'd like this to be fixed as a side effect.)

     For any COMMAND not supported by the stub, an empty response
  (`$#00') should be returned.  That way it is possible to extend the
  protocol.  A newer GDB can tell if a packet is supported based on that
  response.

This is the first result for searching for empty response; it's in the
remote protocol Overview section.  Is that sufficient?  Everywhere else
it's just described as "empty" or "empty reply".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery