Hi Andreas, You are right - Looking at it again, the "qP" code looks like I got halfway through implementing it, then found that I should be using qThreadExtraInfo instead. Please feel free to remove it. The only reason I haven't already is that I've not had time.
Regards, Evan From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andreas Fritiofson Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2011 9:13 AM To: Jie Zhang Cc: Evan Hunter; Evan Hunter; openocd-development Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] Remove "qP" from rtos code? Sorry for bringing this old thread up (no pun intended). This code got a few minutes of my attention after I browsed through the clang static analysis report someone posted recently. rtos.c was one of the first in the list, and while the bug report probably was a false positive, I noticed some serious problems with this code. To be honest, I can't see how it could work at all. The mode variable is repeatedly bit manipulated in ways that can hardly leave any bits set at all. Further, the reply string is repeatedly written over so the reply will probably be nonsense, or at least not what gdb asked for. If this code actually does something useful, please stop me, otherwise I'll simply purge the qP code from rtos.c. /Andreas On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jie Zhang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: > >> 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 >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
