From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24585 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2007 19:25:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 24561 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2007 19:25:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:25:01 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688334B26D; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:25:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B4C4B262; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:25:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Hgn6p-0000ed-6P; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:24:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] [3/4] Untangle register_addr - v2 - mips-linux Message-ID: <20070425192458.GA2235@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070424215221.GB5173@caradoc.them.org> <200704250016.l3P0GifL014998@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704250016.l3P0GifL014998@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:16:44AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > I had assumed people would be building GDB for a different target in > such cases -- if the mips-linux target is used, I agree my proposed > patch is broken. I can't say for sure whether they should be, but I know I and others use a foo-linux gdb to talk to kgdb, or to talk to associated JTAG stubs. Of course, we might be able to make GDB consider that a different OSABI. But it's not easy to tell a static linked program from a kernel image. > > So I guess we're back to distinguishing between a gdbarch method of > providing registers that cannot be fetched and stored, and in addition > a target_ops method -- which in the case of a target using the > trad_ptrace helpers should be made available somehow ... > > In any case, I still like to get the bulk of the register_addr patch > set committed soon -- the whole cannot_fetch_register discussion is > really an independent topic. The following patch contains just the > part to move register_addr to mips-linux-nat.c and leaves the > CANNOT_FETCH_REGISTER situation completely unchanged. Would that > be OK with you for now? Yes, this patch looks fine to me (with the Makefile.in dependency update, of course). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery