From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16335 invoked by alias); 10 May 2006 18:44:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 16327 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2006 18:44:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 18:44:36 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Fdtfm-0003d0-9r for gdb@sourceware.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 14:44:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets - revised Message-ID: <20060510184434.GA13693@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060314021526.GA802@nevyn.them.org> <20060321051221.GA15578@nevyn.them.org> <20060330215247.GA9062@nevyn.them.org> <20060331135859.GA27522@nevyn.them.org> <20060331141958.GA28073@nevyn.them.org> <20060509230123.GA19291@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:26:47PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > +@item qSupported @r{[}:@var{feature} @r{[};@var{feature}@r{]}... @r{]} > ^^^ > This should use @dots{}, not literal dots. Thanks! Fixed. > > +No values of @var{feature} are defined yet. > > Is there any way to somehow mark this last sentence, so that we will > remove it as soon as at least one feature is defined? I'm afraid we > will forget. > > > +Currently, all remote packets which are not mentioned in the response > > +will be probed individually, just as if the @samp{qSupported} query > > +was not supported. In the future, some new packets may be added to > > Same here. Well, I am intending to add a packet of that sort shortly after this patch goes in. I couldn't think of any other way to write the documentation to reflect the current state, in which there are no examples. A @c comment wouldn't help much; it's just as easily forgotten. If you have any ideas on a better way to mark it, I'll do that; otherwise, I will simply flag this message, and make sure that I revisit it soon. > > +@item @var{name}? > > +The remote protocol packet @var{name} may be supported, and @value{GDBN} > > +should attempt to detect the packet when it is needed. > > "attempt to detect the packet"? Perhaps it's better to say "attempt > to detect whether the packet is supported". How about this? The remote protocol packet @var{name} may be supported, and @value{GDBN} should auto-detect support when it is needed. > > +The name of a packet which can be marked as supported or unsupported > > +is the text of the packet in this documentation, up to but not > > +including the first punctuation character or variable. For example, a > > +target which supports hardware watchpoints but not hardware > > +breakpoints might report @samp{Z0-;Z1-;Z2+;Z3+;Z4+}. An exception is > > +made for @samp{qPart:@var{object}} packets; the name of the packet > > +includes the @var{object}, but not the @var{annex}. Individual > > +@samp{qPart} objects types must be reported separately. > > Please add a cross-reference to the two places where the two example > packets are described, so that the reader could consult them in case > they don't remember the packets' formats by heart. To Z0 and qPart, you mean? I don't see how to do it. They're not nodes; they're @items in tables. Would an xref to the entire packet table, which is in the previous section, be helpful for Z0? qPart is in the same table as this paragraph. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery