From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7483 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2004 04:32:58 -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 7439 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2004 04:32:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gizmo01bw.bigpond.com) (144.140.70.11) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2004 04:32:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 23129 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2004 04:32:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bwmam05.bigpond.com) (144.135.24.81) by gizmo01bw.bigpond.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2004 04:32:50 -0000 Received: from cpe-144-137-152-83.qld.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.152.83]) by bwmam05.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_4_2a 38/1966335) with SMTP id 1966335; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:32:50 +1000 Message-ID: <41AFEC78.50107@neurizon.net> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:32:00 -0000 From: Steven Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schlie CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Recognize 'x' in response to 'p' packet References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 The PowerPC is such an example, where the Register response usually includes floating point registers, but say the MPC860 family doesnt have them. I would imagine the reason to do it is so that, in future, GDB can remove from the users view registers that are non existent for a target, rather than show them as 0's. If so, then this would be a necessary first step (identifying such from the target.) Steven Paul Schlie wrote: >>Jim Blandy >>* remote.c (fetch_register_using_p): Recognize 'x's for the value >> of the register as indicating that the register's value is not >> available. > > > Out of curiosity, under what practical circumstances would the value of a > register not be accessible? (and if not, shouldn't an error be returned, as > opposed to an 'x' which is converted to a 0 anyway? Which I've noticed "g" > packets also assume?) > > > >