From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10975 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2012 21:25:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 10963 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2012 21:25:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:25:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FA51C6DE6; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bXcvecq6dLjk; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0231C6DE4; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F1712145616; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:41:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jeff Kenton Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for Tilera TILE-Gx processor (part 2/2: gdb) Message-ID: <20120424212440.GA10991@adacore.com> References: <4F9066C5.30501@tilera.com> <4F917C1F.3060804@codesourcery.com> <4F956C45.3060005@tilera.com> <20120424211825.GC10958@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120424211825.GC10958@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00833.txt.bz2 > Yeah, IIRC, supply_gregset (and its counterpart fill_greset) is > expected to be implemented by the "native" part of GDB (the -nat.c > file). Without it, GDB would not compile. > > I'm wondering if this is something we could put in the target ops? Just to be clear: I am not asking you to redesign this part of GDB! Just thinking out loud, for possible future enhancements... -- Joel