Ping. Jie
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Jie Zhang <jzhang...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Evan, > > If qThreadExtraInfo is not implemented, qP will be used. But since > qThreadExtraInfo has now been implemented, qP should not be needed any > more. GDB added qThreadExtraInfo more than 10 years ago. All GDB > releases since 5.0 will not send out qP packet if the stub supports > qThreadExtraInfo. So I think it's safe for OpenOCD to remove qP > support and only keep qThreadExtraInfo. This will make code clean and > reduce maintenance effort. > > Regards, > Jie > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Evan Hunter <e...@ozhiker.com> wrote: >> Backward compatibility is the reason - >> When I was testing with GDB+eclipse I found that OpenOCD received "qP" >> packets sometimes, and I think I implemented it first, before reading that >> same quotation you mentioned. Then when I implemented qThreadExtraInfo, I >> figured it was nicer to keep "qP" compatibility too. >> >> Regards, >> >> Evan >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Jie Zhang <jzhang...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi Evan, >>> >>> GDB manual says about "qP": >>> >>> Don't use this packet; use the `qThreadExtraInfo' query instead (see >>> below). >>> >>> Since "qThreadExtraInfo" is already supported in rtos.c, why "qP" is >>> still needed? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jie >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openocd-development mailing list >>> Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de >>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development >>> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
