From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>
Cc: cagney@cygnus.com, fche@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Possible remote.c patch for Z-packet breakpoints + Harvard + SID
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:47:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B55F5D8.1060302@cygnus.com>
References: <3B547E19.2070201@cygnus.com> <200107171937.f6HJb4v24007@rtl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00456.html

>>However, as a general rule, I think GDB should be consistent and always send
>>down down CORE_ADDR's.
> 
> 
> Meaning virtual CORE_ADDRs?  I agree.


Yes.


> On 16-Jul-2001, Frank Ch . Eigler wrote:
> 
> 
>>If this gdb-side approach is not deemed acceptable to gdb folks, we
>>may be able to make complementary changes on the sid side without too
>>much littering.  
> 
> 
> Do we have a consensus that a SID-side approach is preferable to a
> GDB-side one?


Looks like it (no one else has spoken up).

It means that GDB sends the remote target a CORE_ADDR and that the 
remote target needs to provide a mechanism for mapping between the 
hardware registers and a CORE_ADDR address.  Not unlike 
gdbarch->{read,write}_pc().

	Andrew