From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28270 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2002 22:09:10 -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 28228 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 22:09:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 22:09:08 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16Wlrx-0005ge-00; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:09:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Basic structure to describe register formats Message-ID: <20020201170917.A21225@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020201152209.A17528@nevyn.them.org> <3C5B0438.6010005@cygnus.com> <20020201162042.A20026@nevyn.them.org> <3C5B0D99.70601@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C5B0D99.70601@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:50:17PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>Almost approved, I've been pokeing at random targets that once worked > >>and they have now all been broken by multi-arch. > >> > > > >>>@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ > >>>+name:arm > >>>+resume:r11,sp,pc > >>>+4:r0 > >>>+4:r1 > >>>+4:r2 > > > >> > >> > >>My only quarm is with this. It extends the G packet definition a little > >>- lines with a leading letter get ignored just like comments and blanks. > >>Correct? > > > > > >Do we even have such a definition? I didn't think we did yet. > > > We have what I posted a while back :-) > > > >If so, then yes, I think that's a good extension. Also I would commit > >it with the number in bits rather than bytes. > > > You mean - 32:r1? > > I think the ``4'' indicates 4*2 hex digits. Digit pairs ordered either > big or little endian. Yes it could be bits, however, the value would > always need to be divisible by 8. No, I don't think it needs to be divisible by 8. If it did I wouldn't feel the need to represent the 8. For instance: - ia64 has 1-bit registers that we currently transmit as either bytes or words, IIRC. - someone mentioned recently working on a non-8-bit target for GDB, but he wasn't quite ready to contribute it. But it will be divisible by 8 for now, so we'll just ignore that for the moment. > >>Any way I think EXPEDITE to better word for describing what is to be > >>done with those registers. SID uses that word to describe this exact > >>same list. > > > > > >That's a good word for what's going on here, I quite like it. OK with > >that change? > > > Yes. > > done. Committed with updates. I settled on putting both the header and shell script in with the data files for now, unless we decide we need them somewhere else. Next, code to use them. Did you reach a decision about preserving existing targets? I would like to: - Mark OBSOLETE, or perhaps CURRENTLY OBSOLETE, NEEDS WORK the other (non-Linux in this pass) targets. - Fix Linux targets cleanly. - Get at least *BSD fixed soon, which should not be hard. - Accompanying changes to configury at each stage. It'll save me a lot of general aggravation to do it the way I outline above, and I think that was the consensus, but I'd like to know before I sit down and do it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer