GDB on Cygwin for PPC Target via Wiggler

["John Brisco" <jbrisco@swri.org>]

I'm trying to debug a MPC555 target system using Macraiger's wiggler
device and OCD DLL's. I'm using the latest Cygwin distribution on
WinNT and GDB 5.0 to build a cross-debugger. I'm new to all of this
and I expect I am missing something basic.

I have tried rebuilding GDB in new directories with two configs:
"../gdb5.0/configure --target=powerpc-elf  i686-pc-cygwin", and
"../gdb5.0/configure --target=powerpc-eabi  i686-pc-cygwin". Neither
new version of GDB recognizes the "target ocd wiggler" command
from the GDB console window. I did copy the Macraiger wiggler DLLs
to the same directory as the new GDB executables.

Can anyone provide me with the correct target and host configurations, or
any other bit of setup I'm overlooking.

Thanks,

John S. Brisco			Phone:	(210)522-3675
Sr. Research Analyst		Fax:	(210)522-5499
Southwest Research Institute	E-Mail:	jbrisco@swri.org
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, TX  78238
From nsd@redhat.com Thu Feb 22 04:29:00 2001
From: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>
To: eliz@is.elta.co.il
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, insight@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Register group proposal
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102221237.f1MCbtX02766@rtl.cygnus.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010222105511.1660T-100000@is>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00291.html
Content-length: 1030

On 22-Feb-2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>If we are to use an iterator, shouldn't the test in this loop be
>abstracted as well, like this, for instance?

Not necessarily: something like REGGROUP_FIRST_REGNUM and
REGGROUP_NEXT_REGNUM are required for implementing multiple groups, but
REGGROUP_NOT_LAST_REGNUM isn't.

REGGROUP_NOT_LAST_REGNUM is consistent with the notion of changing integer
register numbers into opaque identifiers (aka handles or cookies).

But declaring that -1 is a reserved register identifier doesn't tie our
hands much interface-wise.  It works pretty well for various UNIX file and
memory interfaces.

Maybe we need to establish some GDB coding policies about handles defined
and passed around by abstract interfaces: should they be ints, struct
pointers, typedefs, etc., and should there be a known-invalid value such
as -1 or NULL?

At any rate, for now I'd like to avoid the question for register numbers
and stick with existing convention, namely that register handles are ints
and -1 is invalid.

Nick