Re: [PATCH 5/8] gdb/riscv: introduce bare metal core dump support

Luis Machado via Gdb-patches
2020-12-07T17:25:00Z

On 12/7/20 1:58 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> * Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org> [2020-12-07 12:58:19 -0300]:
>
>> On 12/7/20 12:17 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>>> * Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org> [2020-12-02 15:12:26 -0300]:
>>>
>>>> CC-ing paulmathieu@google.com and fredrik.hederstierna@verisure.com, who
>>>> were also looking into supporting bare metal ARM core files.
>>>>
>>>> Just a quick note...
>>>>
>>>> Back in October we pondered about this and it looked reasonable, at the
>>>> time, to put some effort into documenting the format (unlike the current
>>>> Linux core file format, which lacks good documentation).
>>>>
>>>> My take on it is that we need to settle on a format that works for multiple
>>>> architectures.
>>>
>>> Hi Luis,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your feedback, I'd love to better understand what you are
>>> proposing here.
>>
>> Sure. What I'm proposing here is the same I proposed in this thread about
>> ARM bare metal core files...
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-October/172617.html
>>
>> ... and also suggested by Simon here:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-October/172270.html
>>
>> In summary, we should document what a bare metal core file is, what pieces
>> it is expected to contain (registers, target descriptions, hardware
>> information, execution environment etc) and what format it will be in.
>>
>>>
>>> Could you expand a little on why we need a format that supports
>>> multiple architectures (i.e. what benefits will this bring)? And how
>>> this would be different to the approach taken here
>>
>> Having a common format makes it easier to maintain the code and expand the
>> features when needed. This is not different from the Linux core file we have
>> today. The Linux core file is a common format.
>>
>> But unlike Linux core files, which have less than ideal documentation and
>> specifications, we want to take this opportunity to start clean and to
>> document everything required to have a proper bare metal core file.
>>
>> I think this initial definition and documentation will benefit developers
>> moving forward.
>>
>> Does that make it more clear?
>
> Not really. I'll go read the various threads that you referenced and
> see come back once I have more specific questions.
>
> Thanks for the pointers.
>
> Andrew
>

I'm sorry that did not clarify things, but there isn't much more than
that really. All I'm suggesting (up to you to accept it) is that we
clarify/coordinate with the interested parties on what is needed for
bare metal core files and document it properly (I don't think code is
proper documentation).

Clearly there are more folks interested in this.