From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15973 invoked by alias); 14 May 2002 14:27:09 -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 15930 invoked from network); 14 May 2002 14:27:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dell-paw-2.cambridge.redhat.com) (195.224.55.226) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 May 2002 14:27:02 -0000 Received: from north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com (host217-39-2-165.in-addr.btopenworld.com [217.39.2.165]) by dell-paw-2.cambridge.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8832B560; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:27:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4111A1C39B; Tue, 14 May 2002 15:26:52 +0100 (BST) To: Elena Zannoni Cc: thorpej@wasabisystems.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Include sh64 support for shle-*-netbsdelf* References: <20020511115603.W3435@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <20020513082324.R3435@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <15584.11203.728429.774659@localhost.redhat.com> <15585.5715.936570.74188@localhost.redhat.com> From: Nick Clifton Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <15585.5715.936570.74188@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00538.txt.bz2 Hi Elena, > > > The tdep gdb file is going to be built for all the sh targets. And > > > that file requires the sh64 disassembly functions. > > > > In which case there may well be a problem. As it stands configuring > > BFD as, eg, sh3-elf will not bring in the sh64 architecture or > > disassembly functions. Can the tdep file be made conditional on the > > SH architecture specified on the configure command line ? > > > > No, it wouldn't be accepted. We are going towards unifying all the > targets for a given architecture, so that we can switch at runtime > with multiarch. I mean, it is not technically impossible, but it is > philosophically inconsistent with where gdb is going nowadays. We are > even going to build multiple architectures together, like sh and ppc, > in a single executable. As a matter of fact I had such defines when I > first submitted the port, and I removed them. Hmm, OK - in which case would it be acceptable to say that in order to obtain GDB support an SH toolchain should be configured as "sh-elf" and not "sh3-elf" even if the intended default processor is the SH3 ? ie that configurations such as "sh3-elf" are becoming obsolete and will one day be removed ? Cheers Nick