From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1837 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2002 19:34:43 -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 1828 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 19:34:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2002 19:34:42 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gARJABP06071 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:10:11 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gARJYfD03408; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:34:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-59.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.59]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gARJYeC27160; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:34:40 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gARJYZp31734; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:34:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:34:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1021127193435.ZM31733@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Romain Berrendonner "Re: compatibility between gdb and stub" (Nov 21, 10:44am) References: <20021118140945.GF1252@torino.act-europe.fr> <1021118225613.ZM5538@localhost.localdomain> <20021119092051.GD1217@torino.act-europe.fr> <1021120210450.ZM24337@localhost.localdomain> <20021121094419.GB8709@torino.act-europe.fr> To: Romain Berrendonner Subject: Re: compatibility between gdb and stub Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2 On Nov 21, 10:44am, Romain Berrendonner wrote: > On 2002-11-20, Kevin Buettner wrote : > > > > > As I understand it, if a stub replies with a short "g" packet, then > > gdb will simply regard the missing registers as being unavailable. > > > Let's take the example of the 750, with a stub not aware of fpscr. > > They are many registers after fpscr (the first of them is sr0). > With this scheme, when the stub sends back the answer to a 'g' packet, > gdb will consider that the content of fpscr is the content of sr0, and that > thrm3 (the last register) is not available. This would be true if fpscr was simply added in the middle. However, when I "added" fpscr, I made it replace a previously unused slot. So, what should happen in this case is that gdb will simply get a zero (or some other bogus value) for fpscr. Kevin