Re: Can't connect to remote target in a confused state

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>]

Shaun Jackman writes:
 > Alright, glad to hear I wasn't far from the mark. What's the status of the 
 > patch Elena Zannoni submitted? Has any portion of it been included in the 5.1 
 > tree? Should it apply cleanly to a 5.1 tree? If it hasn't been included yet, 
 > is there plans to include it in 5.1.1?


Hmmm, 5.1? Don't know. I haven't committed it yet. I needed to pick some 
better names for the functions, then I got sidetracked. I should do that
shortly.

Sorry about that.

Elena

 > 
 > Thanks,
 > Shaun
 > 
 > On December 19, 2001 11:42, Fernando Nasser wrote:
 > > Shaun,
 > >
 > > This is a known problem.
 > >
 > > Please see the thread:
 > >
 > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-11/msg00396.html
 > >
 > > Fernando
 > >
 > > Shaun Jackman wrote:
 > > > Occasionally my target (arm-elf) may lose its brain due to a program
 > > > error, or what have you. Regardless, I'd still like to be able to attach
 > > > to it with gdb. I use a JTAG device (BDI2000) and as long as the ARM core
 > > > isn't frozen I should be able to attach. This is the error I'm getting...
 > > >
 > > > (gdb) target remote bdi:2001
 > > > Couldn't establish connection to remote target
 > > > Cannot access memory at address 0xeafffff4
 > > >
 > > > Now, I assume when I attach gdb is trying to figure out what frame/stack
 > > > etc it's in. So one of the frame pointer, or stack pointer, or program
 > > > counter is sitting at 0xeafffff4 and gdb is trying to read the memory
 > > > there. When it can't, it fails. Unfortunately, when this happens I have
 > > > to power-cycle my target and restart gdb to be able to get back to
 > > > debugging.
 > > >
 > > > Is my analysis correct? Is there some way I can get gdb to attach to the
 > > > target even if it has been left in a "confused" state? My next actions
 > > > are likely going to be to "load" and "run" anyways, so I really don't
 > > > care that it's confused at the moment.
 > > >
 > > > Thanks,
 > > > Shaun