From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26001 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2013 13:29:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 25943 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2013 13:29:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:28:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0NDSuxQ002163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:28:56 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0NDSsTv028488; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:28:55 -0500 Message-ID: <50FFE596.20303@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:29:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kaushik Phatak CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA 4/5] New port: CR16: gdbserver References: <50CB742E.9090506@redhat.com> <50F97ABF.4060203@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00546.txt.bz2 On 01/23/2013 12:50 PM, Kaushik Phatak wrote: >> You mean additional code in gdbserver, or in the kernel? I'd think the >> former. > Yes, the code changes would be for gdbserver and gdb. > I would prefer to keep my kernel code changes to a minimal. > >> always expose the registers as pairs in the remote protocol, >> and then implement the user visible non-paired registers in >> GDB as pseudo registers (and hide the pairs). IOW, your .dat >> file would stay the same, and gdbserver wouldn't change. GDB's >> core cr16 register numbers would be decoupled from the RSP >> register set. > Yes, I agree. Disturbing the .dat file is causing issues in the > remote protocol. What issues? Can you be more specific? > So, using pseudo registers within gdb would be a > better way to proceed as long as I can get the register numbers to > match my expedite register numbers. -- Pedro Alves