Re: [PATCH 0/7] Support reading/writing memory on architectures with non 8-bits bytes

Eli Zaretskii
2015-04-09T16:29:12Z

> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:39:06 -0400
> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com>
> CC: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>
> > I wonder: wouldn't it be possible to keep the current "byte == 8 bits"
> > notion, and instead to change the way addresses are interpreted by the
> > target back-end?
> >
> > IOW, do we really need to expose this issue all the way to the higher
> > levels of GDB application code?
>
> I don't think there is an elegant way of making this work without gdb
> knowing at least a bit about it. If you don't make some changes at one
> level, you'll end up needing to make the equivalent changes at some other
> level (still in gdb core).

I didn't mean to imply that this could work without changes on _some_
level. The question is what level, and whether or not we expose this
to the application level, where commands are interpreted.

> >From what I understand, your suggestion would be to treat addresses as
> indexes of octets in memory. So, to read target bytes at addresses 3
> and 4, I would have to ask gdb for 4 "gdb" bytes starting at address 6.
>
> size == 2
> v-------------------v
> +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> real idx | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
> +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
> octet idx | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
> +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
> ^-------------------^
> size == 4
>
> The backend would then divide everything by two and read 2 target bytes
> starting at address 3.

Something like that, yes.

> If we require the user or the front-end to do that conversion, we just push
> the responsibility over the fence to them.

I don't follow: how does the above place any requirements on the user?

> For the developer working with that system 8 hours per day, a size
> of 1 is one 16-bits byte. His debugger should understand that
> language.

By "size" do you mean the result of "sizeof"? That could still
measure in target-side units, I see no contradiction there. I just
don't see why do we need to call that unit a "byte".

> If I have a pointer p (char *p) and I want to examine memory starting at p,
> I would do "x/10h p". That wouldn't give me what I want, as it would give me
> memory at p/2.

I don't see how it follows from my suggestion that 10 here must mean
80 bits. It could continue meaning 10 16-bit units.

> Also, the gdb code in the context of these platforms becomes instantly more
> hackish if you say that the address variable is not really the address we want
> to read, but the double.

I didn't say that, either.

> Another problem: the DWARF information describes the types using sizes in
> target bytes (at least in our case, other implementations could do it
> differently I suppose). The "char" type has a size of 1 (1 x 16-bits).

That's fine, just don't call that a "byte". Call it a "word".

> So, when you "print myvar", gdb would have to know that it needs to convert
> the size to octets to request the right amount of memory.

No, it won't. It sounds like my suggestion was totally misunderstood.

> I think the solution we propose is the one that models the best the debugged
> system and therefore is the least hacky.

My problem with your solution is that you require the user to change
her thinking about what a "byte" and "word" are. GDB is moving to
being able to debug several different targets at the same time, and I
worry about the user's sanity when one of those targets is of the kind
you are describing. E.g., suppose we will have a command to copy
memory from one target to another: how do we count the size of the
buffer then?