From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3832 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2006 20:59:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 3822 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Sep 2006 20:59:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.palmsource.com (HELO mx2.palmsource.com) (12.7.175.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:59:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE2826755; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.palmsource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.palmsource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00452-04-4; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F61265FF; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [RFC] h8300 "info registers" fix Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <0F4DF2E21F33DD46BE7B8CDEEB0E16D307EAB4@ussunex01.palmsource.com> References: <0F4DF2E21F33DD46BE7B8CDEEB0E16D307EAB2@ussunex01.palmsource.com> <20060913200917.GA20574@nevyn.them.org> <0F4DF2E21F33DD46BE7B8CDEEB0E16D307EAB3@ussunex01.palmsource.com> <20060913203043.GB21009@nevyn.them.org> From: "Michael Snyder" To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" Cc: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 Daniel:=20 >On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 01:20:09PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Grumble -- is the regcache kept in host order, or target order? > >Target order. > >[Which is apparently a bit weird; most debug interfaces I've seen >lately use host order.] That's right -- it's a relic of the fact that the original=20 "register cache" was the register packet itself, which is=20 generated on the target side. The target doesn't know anything about the host, so there's no way that can be in host order. Anyway, in that case, the gdb_byte[4] approach is more likely to be correct, eh? I think I understand the problem now -- the pseudo-register is only one byte, so it's "natural" to call pseudo_register_read with a one byte buffer. But the physical register is four bytes, so you have to have a four byte buffer to read it. Wonder why it ever worked? ;-/