From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31268 invoked by alias); 7 May 2005 19:26:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31247 invoked from network); 7 May 2005 19:26:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 May 2005 19:26:22 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-69-180.inter.net.il [80.230.69.180]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id EHW61775 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 7 May 2005 22:25:44 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 19:26:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Paul Schlie Message-ID: <01c5533a$Blat.v2.4$5ad8e6a0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: drow@false.org, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Paul Schlie on Fri, 06 May 2005 20:55:59 -0400) Subject: Re: Available registers as a target property Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 20:55:59 -0400 > From: Paul Schlie > CC: > > it seems more consistent to enable GDB to select which of N register > models to assume based upon the target's identification, than > requiring the target to supply a detailed description of it's own > register model; thereby not requiring any otherwise unnecessary > complexity be added to the target's GDB server implementation? I disagree: the target specifics should be localized to the target, they should not invade the application-level GDB sources. Apart of the purity of design issue, keeping target specifics in the target code is also more practical: GDB maintenance tends to have target experts responsible for the target-specific source files, while the GDB higher-level parts are maintained by people who know less about specific target features. So I agree with Daniel: this knowledge should not be pushed into higher GDB levels.