[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gdb
Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz () gnu ! org>
Date: 2008-07-26 5:54:22
Message-ID: ufxpxyyup.fsf () gnu ! org
[Download RAW message or body]
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:12:38 -0400
> From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
> CC: Paul_Koning@dell.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com
>
> >> You'll note the documentation says turning off acks may be desirable to reduce
> >> communication overhead *or* "for other reasons". In fact, it is the "other
> >> reasons" that motivated this patch. We are working on designing the extensions
> >> to the remote protocol to support nonstop mode, and we realized that we simply
> >> cannot do it in combination with using +/- acks on the asynchronous responses.
> >
> > Then please just say so in the docs.
>
> As you'll note from subsequent discussion, we decided to use another mechanism
> for non-stop mode, so it has no dependence on the noack mode patch any more.
> I'm not sure what else you think the docs for noack mode should say?
Perhaps nothing, now that the decision was to abandon the original
approach. But the principle remains: if there's some _real_ reason to
including a feature in GDB, let's state that reason in the docs,
instead of hiding it in some "etc."
> Incidentally, I am working on docs for non-stop mode now -- both the user-level
> changes, and the remote protocol pieces.
Thanks!
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic