From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11710 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2007 21:56:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 11701 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2007 21:56:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from csogate.cso.atmel.com (HELO csogate.cso.atmel.com) (12.10.151.59) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:56:29 +0000 Received: from csomail.cso.atmel.com (csomail.cso.atmel.com [10.95.248.26]) by csogate.cso.atmel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l66Lr9mw006204; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:53:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 3684L0054 (3362-A0692.cso.atmel.com [10.95.116.16]) by csomail.cso.atmel.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JKS003LR24L91@csomail.cso.atmel.com>; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:53:09 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:56:00 -0000 From: Eric Weddington Subject: RE: What should a CPU simulator support? In-reply-to: <20070706122023.GA11676@caradoc.them.org> To: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" Cc: "'Jim Blandy'" , gdb@sourceware.org Message-id: <027201c7c018$0b14a940$10745f0a@cso.atmel.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20070706122023.GA11676@caradoc.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 > -----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: 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