RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets

RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets

[Jim Blandy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 278 bytes --]

This comes out of the recent discussion on gdb@:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-11/msg00282.html

gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
2005-11-15  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>

	* gdb.texinfo (Packets): Clarify lack of restrictions on behavior
	of stub when processing an 'm' packet.

[-- Attachment #2: jimb.gdb-doc-remote-protocol-m-no-alignment.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1951 bytes --]

gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
2005-11-15  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>

	* gdb.texinfo (Packets): Clarify lack of restrictions on behavior
	of stub when processing an 'm' packet.

Index: gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.287
diff -c -p -r1.287 gdb.texinfo
*** gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo	14 Nov 2005 03:27:22 -0000	1.287
--- gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo	15 Nov 2005 08:59:04 -0000
*************** Reserved for future use.
*** 22347,22364 ****
  @cindex @code{m} packet
  
  Read @var{length} bytes of memory starting at address @var{addr}.
! Neither @value{GDBN} nor the stub assume that sized memory transfers are
! assumed using word aligned accesses. FIXME: @emph{A word aligned memory
! transfer mechanism is needed.}
  
  Reply:
  @table @samp
  @item @var{XX@dots{}}
  @var{XX@dots{}} is mem contents. Can be fewer bytes than requested if able
! to read only part of the data.  Neither @value{GDBN} nor the stub assume
! that sized memory transfers are assumed using word aligned
! accesses. FIXME: @emph{A word aligned memory transfer mechanism is
! needed.}
  @item E@var{NN}
  @var{NN} is errno
  @end table
--- 22347,22365 ----
  @cindex @code{m} packet
  
  Read @var{length} bytes of memory starting at address @var{addr}.
! Note that @var{addr} may not be aligned to any particular boundary.
! 
! The stub need not use any particular size or alignment when gathering
! data from memory for the response; even if @var{addr} is word-aligned
! and @var{length} is a multiple of the word size, the stub is free to
! use byte accesses, or not.  For this reason, this packet may not be
! suitable for accessing memory-mapped I/O devices.
  
  Reply:
  @table @samp
  @item @var{XX@dots{}}
  @var{XX@dots{}} is mem contents. Can be fewer bytes than requested if able
! to read only part of the data.
  @item E@var{NN}
  @var{NN} is errno
  @end table

Re: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:02:10 -0800
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
> 
> gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
> 2005-11-15  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* gdb.texinfo (Packets): Clarify lack of restrictions on behavior
> 	of stub when processing an 'm' packet.

This is fine, please commit.

Perhaps it's a good idea to add an index entry about something like
"alignment of remote memory accesses".

Fwd: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets

[Jim Blandy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

Accidentally dropped gdb-patches from the recipients.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2005 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>


On 11/15/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Some possibilities:
> >
> > @cindex alignment of remote memory accesses
> > @cindex size of remote memory accesses
> > @cindex memory, alignment and size of remote accesses
> > @cindex memory-mapped input/output and remote protocol
> > @cindex input/output, memory-mapped and remote protocol
> >
> > I could go on like that, but it feel like overkill.  What do you think?
>
> #1 and #3 will do, I think.

For memory-mapped I/O, both alignment and size matter; I don't think
there's a sense in which one is more relevant to the question than the
other.  So I've committed 1-3; patch attached.  I'm happy to change it
if you disagree, of course.

2005-11-15  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>

        * gdb.texinfo (Packets): Add index entries for 'm' packet
        disclaimers.

[-- Attachment #2: jimb.gdb-doc-remote-protocol-index-m-disclaimer.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 903 bytes --]

gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
2005-11-15  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>

	* gdb.texinfo (Packets): Add index entries for 'm' packet
	disclaimers.

Index: gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.290
diff -c -p -r1.290 gdb.texinfo
*** gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo	15 Nov 2005 19:58:30 -0000	1.290
--- gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo	16 Nov 2005 06:17:08 -0000
*************** data from memory for the response; even 
*** 22332,22337 ****
--- 22332,22340 ----
  and @var{length} is a multiple of the word size, the stub is free to
  use byte accesses, or not.  For this reason, this packet may not be
  suitable for accessing memory-mapped I/O devices.
+ @cindex alignment of remote memory accesses
+ @cindex size of remote memory accesses
+ @cindex memory, alignment and size of remote accesses
  
  Reply:
  @table @samp

Re: Fwd: RFA: GDB manual: clarify lack of restrictions on 'm' packets

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:38:30 -0800
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
> 
> For memory-mapped I/O, both alignment and size matter; I don't think
> there's a sense in which one is more relevant to the question than the
> other.  So I've committed 1-3; patch attached.  I'm happy to change it
> if you disagree, of course.

I don't disagree.  Thanks.