From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7013 invoked by alias); 20 May 2003 20:51:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6935 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 20:51:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 May 2003 20:51:29 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4KKpSH11602 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:51:28 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4KKpPI20045; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:51:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4KKpPo02273; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:51:25 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4KKpJA23160; Tue, 20 May 2003 13:51:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 20:51:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030520205119.ZM23159@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: cgd@broadcom.com "Re: [WIP/RFC] MIPS registers overhaul" (May 20, 1:37pm) References: <1030510002453.ZM3880@localhost.localdomain> <3EBD6131.30209@redhat.com> <1030514220025.ZM10373@localhost.localdomain> <3EC461C1.1080104@redhat.com> <1030516230550.ZM12582@localhost.localdomain> <1030517004052.ZM13153@localhost.localdomain> To: cgd@broadcom.com, kevinb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [WIP/RFC] MIPS registers overhaul Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00373.txt.bz2 On May 20, 1:37pm, cgd@broadcom.com wrote: > At Sat, 17 May 2003 00:41:10 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Buettner" wrote: > > Unfortunately, it isn't reasonable to use an ABI-specific RDA to debug > > an application which uses a different ABI. It might kind of, sort of > > work some of the time, but there are various things that won't work. > > You've just identified one of the problems. > > BTW, because of this kind of problem, does it even make sense that > when talking to a mips64 kernel but using an o32 rda (or gdbserver > 8-), you'd use a "mips64" protocol? I.e., why wouldn't it just use > the 32-bit mips protocol, since from you're debugging a 32-bit binary > with a 32-bit debugging daemon... Unfortunately, with the way things are (still) layed out for MIPS, if you want a single GDB executable to be able to debug both 64- and 32-bit code, it needs to use the same register width for the remote protocol. Assuming that my recently proposed MIPS overhaul actually gets in, we're closer to being able to dynamically change this so that a single GDB binary can use either protocol. The constant MIPS_REGSIZE will need to be changed so that it can be set to be either 4 or 8... I think I have the code in a state now where this shouldn't be hard to do. Kevin