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 6F8C63857C6E for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:19:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6F8C63857C6E IronPort-SDR: 9ICpDpDVNnumkqXjEr9X5cSwlxeQGBwLvt2o7+eliU7RImBvxwHV2c3/qliNmLomHloXvJYLsp 5mzhAknAFQ4g7tcmLBZrTwg+zUljjCs4kgyXHVlgIbseK412pJs+oQlJvtz6/hbIFuUL7SPNL3 LtjFreH6OXengLU5ZHXhzgM9teWT7i9dy5ITIhfi0KWZTqIzPLlfMvc3lP7H1bJc3LooOLXM65 6bBVTvRDf/xKOsywwi3zg1DdPnYepZJ4fy0uqrQFPFmpxP+YvpoOQ9jGiBzCCcPEP3yhEpTVfi H5Q= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,380,1589212800"; d="scan'208";a="246096625" 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; 22 Jul 2020 05:20:28 +0800 IronPort-SDR: nQB7rGzPBRspFs9Ikgm+pVkvqVbPcNmsDGCN5Lo0XhXShaGJ0U+igvzg66nbTqWg+QMemrBM3J Xb8yQZ98Cf+85btG4EEGBuvmv/pLF4yCE= 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 14:07:45 -0700 IronPort-SDR: Klhfdam+HIi7ApHsEZ6zkYqCdRhkcBPMFkfFug5mmKnlCkwm/aDhd6/YSglx95z6Aw723u8nMQ /91M1XQFqEAg== 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 14:19:27 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 22:19:24 +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=-5.5 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 21:19:31 -0000 On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Reuben Thomas wrote: > Just to eliminate this source of potential error, I adjusted my stub so > that when it first connects to gdb it does not send a packet. This does not > change the exchange with gdb in any way, except that the first packet from > the stub is not sent. Well, this corrects an actual protocol error. Just as the name "reply" implies a stub is not supposed to send one when not requested by GDB, so not spontaneously upon accepting a connection from GDB either. Maciej