From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stu Grossman To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: breakpoint extension for remote protocol Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 21:46:00 -0000 Message-id: <13936.45476.191551.329690@babylon-5.cygnus.com> References: <199812041858.KAA25185.cygnus.gdb@jtc.redbacknetworks.com> <36708ED8.B84B67E0@cygnus.com> <36708ED8.B84B67E0@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00189.html Andrew Cagney writes: > "J.T. Conklin" wrote: > > > Here is the protocol elements that I'm currently working with: > > > > Insert Breakpoint: B,
[,] > > returns: ?? - A cookie representing the breakpoint > > EX - breakpoint type not supported > > - no breakpoint contexts available > > - invalid/unsupported address > > - invalid/unsupported length > > FYI, there is already a semi-official use of `B' as a generic remote > breakpoint operation. The syntax is: > > B
,S Set a breakpoint > B
,C Clear a breakpoint Where is this used? I see no evidence of this in devo's remote.c. Is it hiding out on a branch somewhere? FYI, the syntax is bogus. It should use B and b like the rest of the commands. Also, the protocol should support the ability to set a breakpoint or watchpoint on a range of addresses. The command format used by JT was developed by me many years ago, and should have been used instead of this `semi-official' method which was apparantly done without consultation of someone who understands how to develop this protocol. > With regard to the general question of extending the remote-gdb protocol > so that it supports a generic hardware breakpoint mechanism. I agree it > is needed. It is a missing part of the overall toolkit. I have discussed this with GDB folk in the past. If you want to hear what needs to be done, ping me. > Did you know > that some targets actually implement hardware breakpoints by poking the > registers directly? Yes, and this is a complete sin. Stu