From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18002 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2008 04:27:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 17981 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2008 04:27:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:26:51 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B3E10EB7; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:26:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C3010EB4; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:26:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L85nc-0006iZ-2u; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:26:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Masaki Muranaka Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Can't set architecture to m32c on m32c-elf-gdb. Message-ID: <20081204042648.GA25245@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Masaki Muranaka , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org References: <20081203140802.GA6965@caradoc.them.org> <4CFDA3F3-316D-4218-B2CD-8A9B7D403EBC@monami-software.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CFDA3F3-316D-4218-B2CD-8A9B7D403EBC@monami-software.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:03:56AM +0900, Masaki Muranaka wrote: > Before applied my patch. > > | (gdb) set architecture m32c > | The target architecture is assumed to be m16c > > The architecture settings is not changed. > And there seems to be no change around register settings. > > | (gdb) print $dma0 > | $1 = void > > It's an unsuitable behaviour, right? > > > > After applied my patch. > > | (gdb) set architecture m32c > | The target architecture is assumed to be m32c > > And we can use some extra registers for m32c. ARM has architecture name "arm" and printable name "armv2", and that works fine: (gdb) set architecture arm The target architecture is assumed to be arm (gdb) set architecture armv2 The target architecture is assumed to be armv2 (gdb) set architecture arm The target architecture is assumed to be arm See bfd_default_scan for more. I guess it's because the architecture is named "m32c", but the default flag is set for m16c. If that's so, "set architecture m32c:m32c" should work - does it? In that case your patch makes sense though I don't know what might break. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery