RE: What should a CPU simulator support?

[Eric Weddington <eweddington@cso.atmel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:drow@false.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:20 AM
> To: Robert Norton
> Cc: Jim Blandy; s88; Wenbo Yang; gdb@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: What should a CPU simulator support?
>
> Right.  So, the summary here is that I recommend using the remote
> protocol because it provides excellent long-term insulation from the
> internals of GDB.  We try not to make backwards-incompatible changes
> to the protocol, at least not without discussion and special
> circumstances (e.g. no signs that anyone has used a feature in a
> decade).  So there's no risk of the Z0 / Z1 packets disappearing,
> unlike in the remote simulator.

Sorry to be dense, but I just wanted to make sure that I understand what
you're saying in how it relates to our situation.

For the AVR target, there is no internal simulator in GDB, but there is an
external simulator available, simulavr:
<https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/simulavr>
which uses the GDB remote protocol.

You specifically recommend that we keep this layout (external simultor),
rather than try to develop a new AVR simulator that would go into the GDB
tree, correct?

Thanks,
Eric Weddington