From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9929 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2002 20:26:58 -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 9922 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 20:26:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 20:26:57 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FE73E0B; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D63F78C.4050001@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:26:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason R Thorpe , Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Don't complain about unknown OSABI References: <3D5FC00D.50001@ges.redhat.com> <20020818154927.GA20358@nevyn.them.org> <3D5FCE6A.9080308@ges.redhat.com> <20020819161543.GA10137@nevyn.them.org> <3D61792B.1020708@ges.redhat.com> <20020820015542.GA12371@nevyn.them.org> <3D626854.1040500@ges.redhat.com> <20020820161127.GA26026@nevyn.them.org> <3D63C7FD.6070009@ges.redhat.com> <20020821170838.GA27249@nevyn.them.org> <20020821101107.C17339@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00668.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:08:39PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > Trying to code for edge cases that can't exist yet leads to sloppiness, > > in my opinion. Those cases should be dealt with when we have the means > > to build a GDB supporting more than one processor family, and someone > > adds per-architecture OS/ABIs. A patch to include more than one architecture into a single gdb was posted a year ago :-) > FWIW, I agree 100% with Daniel. Code isn't the problem here. It's the user-gdb interface. Does the the user model still work if there is more than one architecture. Not exploring the user-gdb interaction and instead just hacking code is how we came to have all the CLI querks we've come to hate :-) Anyway, I suspect just forcing the architecture when the OSABI is changed is the most robust approach: > (gdb) set osabi MIPS/GNU/Linux > Current architecture is NS32K, change to MIPS? (y or n) ``the user is always right'' (no matter how silly it is :-). I think it is also becomming aparent that there are several OSABI involved: - the global default - the current instance ``set osabi'' would change the current instance. enjoy, Andrew