From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14183 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2002 01:32:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14167 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2002 01:32:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2002 01:32:10 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6223D1A; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:32:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CBF73A3.2090409@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:32:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: joern.rennecke@st.com Cc: bje@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: SH5 simulator contribution References: <15451.47633.743434.331956@scooby.brisbane.redhat.com> <3C5F55F3.2030807@cygnus.com> <15455.24394.87381.934711@scooby.brisbane.redhat.com> <3C5F66BB.50001@cygnus.com> <15455.31263.847272.160235@scooby.brisbane.redhat.com> <3C6008DF.5020702@cygnus.com> <15456.16085.191791.112025@scooby.brisbane.redhat.com> <3C6088B3.7080702@cygnus.com> <3CB6AD19.CCDD835A@st.com> <3CB70F11.6010609@cygnus.com> <3CBA940B.B99F0E4C@st.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00619.txt.bz2 > So I don't see that you gain anything by unifying the numbering scheme >> > in the gdb <-> sim interface, as it would be at odds with the interface >> > to gcc and the hardware interfaces. > >> >> Formalizing would be a better word. So that GDB and the SIM can agree >> on the register numbers and their sizes without needing to know the >> others internals. > > > They only need to know if the program is for an sh5 or an earlier processor. > This information is readily available from the elf flags (the lower five bits > of which enconde the sh version this program is compiled for), or the bfd > word size. Gdb already needs to know this in order to print registers in the > correct size, and the simulator in order to simulate the right instruction > set(s). Yes? > So do you want a file that explicitly documents the two interface? > The danger of this is that if registers are added to a successor of the sh5, > the documentation can get out-of-sync with the header file. Sorry, you've lost me here. There should be only one GDB:SIM interface for the SH. > Or should we rather make an include/sim-sh.h file - to be used in the old > simulators sim_fetch_register / sim_store_register as well as in the > to-be-written translation function in the new simulator for sh2-sh4 programs, > and state in gdbint.texi that the interfaces are defined in include/sim-sh.h > and include/sim-sh64.h ? Having just looked at a different target (similar problem), I think having a single file that assigns different number ranges to the sh4 vs sh64 registers would be best. That would make it easy to detect things like trying to fetch an SH64 register from the SH4 sim. Andrew