Re: Possible remote.c patch for Z-packet breakpoints + Harvard + SID

[Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>]

On 17-Jul-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>Have you looked at ``TRANSLATE_XFER_ADDRESS''?  The d10v uses it to translate
>between a virtual CORE_ADDR and a real CORE_ADDR.

I think that won't work, because only Z-packet breakpoint addresses need
to be translated to real addresses before being sent to SID.
TRANSLATE_XFER_ADDRESS translates memory read/write addresses, which must
not be translated before being sent to SID for the architecture in
question.

>However, as a general rule, I think GDB should be consistent and always send
>down down CORE_ADDR's.

Meaning virtual CORE_ADDRs?  I agree.

On 16-Jul-2001, Frank Ch . Eigler wrote:

>If this gdb-side approach is not deemed acceptable to gdb folks, we
>may be able to make complementary changes on the sid side without too
>much littering.  

Do we have a consensus that a SID-side approach is preferable to a
GDB-side one?

Nick