From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Cc: cgd@broadcom.com, kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [WIP/RFC] MIPS registers overhaul
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:58:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030521165816.GA8784@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ECBA393.9020904@redhat.com>
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:04:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >>That came out wrong.
> >>
> >>I think a GDB debugging a remote 64 bit MIPS ISA should always expect 64
> >>bit GPRs and 64 bit FPRs when the ISA is 64 bits, regardless of the ABI.
> >>
> >>It is quite legitimate, for instance, for GDB to do something as sick-o
> >>as clearing the FR bit and then resume the thread. The register
> >>save/restore code needs to correctly handle this - be it reject the
> >>operation or ``do the right thing''.
> >
> >
> >But when using rda or gdbserver to debug an o32 application, then for
> >all intents and purposes we are debugging a 32-bit ISA. The kernel
> >will not allow us to change the FR bit. The app will never see 64-bit
> >registers. The 32-bit protocol makes more sense here IMO.
>
> From GDB's view point, the ISA is 64 bit.
>
> The fact that a specific remote debug agent choses to use 32 bit
> registers is a limitation of that debug agent / kernel. An embedded
> target, and I'm pretty sure IRIX 6.5, for instance, don't do that.
No, from GDB's view point in this situation, the target ISA is _NOT_ 64
bit. Nothing 64-bit is available, either to the inferior or to the
debugger. Period.
I would be a little surprised if IRIX didn't work that way too, but I
don't have access to IRIX to poke around.
Certainly straight embedded is different. For those obviously the
64-bit protocol is appropriate.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-21 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-10 0:25 Kevin Buettner
2003-05-10 20:30 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-10 20:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-14 22:00 ` Kevin Buettner
[not found] ` <mailpost.1052949911.28802@news-sj1-1>
2003-05-14 23:35 ` cgd
2003-05-15 0:07 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-15 0:15 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-15 22:01 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-16 3:24 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-16 4:00 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-16 17:20 ` Kevin Buettner
[not found] ` <mailpost.1053057614.17325@news-sj1-1>
2003-05-16 22:25 ` cgd
[not found] ` <mailpost.1053123913.16634@news-sj1-1>
2003-05-16 22:50 ` cgd
2003-05-16 23:05 ` Kevin Buettner
[not found] ` <mailpost.1053126410.17856@news-sj1-1>
2003-05-16 23:24 ` cgd
2003-05-17 0:41 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-17 20:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-20 20:18 ` Always remote: " Andrew Cagney
2003-05-20 20:26 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
[not found] ` <mailpost.1053132070.20348@news-sj1-1>
2003-05-20 20:37 ` cgd
2003-05-20 20:51 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-20 20:52 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-20 21:57 ` cgd
2003-05-21 15:34 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-21 15:41 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-21 16:38 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-21 16:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-05-21 18:32 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-21 19:15 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-21 19:45 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-22 0:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-23 18:39 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-23 19:02 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-23 20:45 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-20 20:25 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-20 20:32 ` cgd
2003-05-21 15:40 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-15 1:44 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-16 18:06 ` cgd
2003-06-16 18:47 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-15 17:23 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-16 20:06 ` cgd
2003-06-16 20:41 ` Andrew Cagney
[not found] ` <mailpost.1055796186.4097@news-sj1-1>
2003-06-17 5:04 ` cgd
2003-06-17 14:27 ` Andrew Cagney
[not found] ` <mailpost.1055860052.3406@news-sj1-1>
2003-06-17 16:27 ` cgd
2003-05-21 20:58 David Anderson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030521165816.GA8784@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=cgd@broadcom.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kevinb@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox