From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John Brisco" To: "GDB List" Subject: GDB on Cygwin for PPC Target via Wiggler Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:23:00 -0000 Message-id: <000301c09cca$2b40d590$5564a281@aegir.datasys.swri.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00290.html 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 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: 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