From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4905 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2012 19:36:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 4777 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2012 19:36:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:36:06 +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 q3QJZXZO003850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:35:33 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3QJZVD4022983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:35:32 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ilija Kocho , Terry Guo Subject: Re: [patch] Add support for VFP d16 layout for Cortex-M4 References: <4F902B4E.9070704@eCosCentric.com> <4F91593B.4020309@redhat.com> <4F95FA8C.7000509@eCosCentric.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F95FA8C.7000509@eCosCentric.com> (Jonathan Larmour's message of "Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:57:48 +0100") Message-ID: <87ipgm70cc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00962.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jifl" == Jonathan Larmour writes: Jifl> Sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you, but I've been Jifl> implementing what's required to send the XML target description Jifl> support in the eCos stub, so that I could have hard Jifl> data. Unfortunately it has confirmed my suspicions. Adding code Jifl> and const data to send back the description for a vanilla Cortex-M Jifl> profile target has added 1252 bytes to our GDB stub's Jifl> footprint. If the VFP regs description is added to that, that adds Jifl> another 931 bytes to give 2183 bytes. That's a big penalty. Can the XML be compressed? I don't know. If not, what if it could be? I'm curious what you use for your stub. Based on the recent gdb@ threads, it seems like it can't be gdbserver. Tom