From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from esa2.hgst.iphmx.com (esa2.hgst.iphmx.com [68.232.143.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7EC3850436 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:34:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1D7EC3850436 IronPort-SDR: flkImr/EWJ2lietcCLRoHWP8hMubceIqJS7pHKzPJQ9XJWHU3ot9ljnqmuCgkhMHw3ocK/3+Hj 08J3oHYlFXGfeJs7Ji+PQV6hOfxRw9ilITWvMpP83vFuRxPyyPkr0dUiqtzKzcDyoyFxG4EEDV maJr5iSRNb4KAdSmB7LCGhKRbTLn88XQUXTFvslc+S4IHq0b80wne56azHRFYn8tzMPBBeB1wY zkR+Yhk+1JHjLlwRoJ+aikPM2AMzm0aubPxCPKvrsCtoipdcMdobgDj3tp5SPV1ucG0pXv6RhC N7k= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,378,1589212800"; d="scan'208";a="246051521" Received: from h199-255-45-14.hgst.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep01.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.14]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2020 19:34:01 +0800 IronPort-SDR: 0XNODs4A9NIDXDihT2n2hI09pamI95QdEn4r8U00wC1tz7jKm8qLuOfkGpwAlcjad/O3q3YOGL AoV54NjHyiOCk3/TXptfqFN/puK51t/F4= Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com ([10.248.3.37]) by uls-op-cesaep01.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jul 2020 04:22:16 -0700 IronPort-SDR: eqW7H8RGuG4oKLHCUMIyUqwWz9B6th1eB30TUBcGu3wsA47mE9KleAQ7G4sIBpojuTw4FOf9dW nyD3QL/Fm08g== WDCIronportException: Internal Received: from unknown (HELO redsun52) ([10.149.66.28]) by uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jul 2020 04:33:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:33:54 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Reuben Thomas cc: Christo Crause , Reuben Thomas via Gdb Subject: Re: Remote protocol question: the documentation says '?' is not required, but maybe it is? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LFD 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:34:01 -0000 On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Reuben Thomas via Gdb wrote: > Also, whether or not I send T does not affect GDB's behaviour. In fact, I > shortened my code by changing it to send an S packet instead, which also > works fine, but still GDB needs me to implement '?'. The "invalid remote > reply" is in response to the stub sending an empty reply to "?". FYI, I do believe `?' is indeed mandatory, as GDB needs to figure out the initial state of the remote target as it has connected to it, and there is no other way. Documentation may be incomplete/incorrect here, and fallout from the lack of response (a protocol violation) might be better. Maciej