From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "PARK JONG PORK" To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?sei5/Lz2?= Cc: Subject: Re: how to build gdb with cygnus? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 04:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000b01be84d3$f3004680$207471d2@okc1> References: <003928C86BDDD211BC8000A0C98A6129031737@SWC> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00015.html Message-ID: <19990412045600._ia6OcsHRgwBHba4WMx1eURv7Wf48zepUlJD0n6qr-A@z> I had same problem. and, new snapshot(04/xx) can't compile Perl 5.005_03 better. ----- ¿øº» ¸Þ½ÃÁö ----- º¸³½ »ç¶÷: ±è¹ü¼ö ¹Þ´Â »ç¶÷: º¸³½ ³¯Â¥: 1999³â 4¿ù 12ÀÏ ¿ù¿äÀÏ ¿ÀÈÄ 3:46 Á¦¸ñ: how to build gdb with cygnus? > John Fortin told us: > > > All, I compiled the newest snapshot of gdb using cygwin ( after > fighting > > with the configuration. Doesn't seem to work well recursively. ) > > I have the same problem with gdb-4.17 and gdb-4.18. > Could you tell me how you worked it out? > > Thanks, > Bumsoo Kim > kbs@swc.sec.samsung.co.kr > > >From fortinj@ibm.net Mon Apr 12 06:14:00 1999 From: fortinj@ibm.net To: PARK JONG PORK Cc: ±è¹ü¼ö , gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: how to build gdb with cygnus? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:14:00 -0000 Message-id: <3711E486.D8499C9F@ibm.net> References: <003928C86BDDD211BC8000A0C98A6129031737@SWC> <000b01be84d3$f3004680$207471d2@okc1> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00016.html Content-length: 1218 What I did is went into each directory individually and ran configure. Some of them didn't work correctly, some of them did. I then copied the largest config.cache without errors to the base directory and ran configure again. I believe I had one or two small errors, but ignored them. I checked the config.cache after the errors and the correct values were there. I don't remember which they were. gdb then compiled, though without thread support. regards, John Fortin fortinj@ibm.net PARK JONG PORK wrote: > > I had same problem. > and, new snapshot(04/xx) can't compile Perl 5.005_03 better. > > ----- ¿øº» ¸Þ½ÃÁö ----- > º¸³½ »ç¶÷: ±è¹ü¼ö > ¹Þ´Â »ç¶÷: > º¸³½ ³¯Â¥: 1999³â 4¿ù 12ÀÏ ¿ù¿äÀÏ ¿ÀÈÄ 3:46 > Á¦¸ñ: how to build gdb with cygnus? > > > John Fortin told us: > > > > > All, I compiled the newest snapshot of gdb using cygwin ( after > > fighting > > > with the configuration. Doesn't seem to work well recursively. ) > > > > I have the same problem with gdb-4.17 and gdb-4.18. > > Could you tell me how you worked it out? > > > > Thanks, > > Bumsoo Kim > > kbs@swc.sec.samsung.co.kr > > > > >From jimb@cygnus.com Mon Apr 12 13:07:00 1999 From: Jim Blandy To: Jeff Epler Cc: gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: MMX registers on x86? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:07:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <19990312122003.A25822@craie.inetnebr.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00017.html Content-length: 323 > I know folks are talking about floating point support in gdb, but what > about MMX (including 3dnow) registers? > > In my work with 3dnow, I used as a solution a routine which stored the 8 > mmx registers in memory, and I just examined that instead... I haven't heard of anyone else working on this. Write a patch! :) >From jepler@inetnebr.com Mon Apr 12 14:16:00 1999 From: Jeff Epler To: gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: MMX registers on x86? Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:16:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990412151218.64916@falcon.inetnebr.com> References: <19990312122003.A25822@craie.inetnebr.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00018.html Content-length: 1055 On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:40:57PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > > I know folks are talking about floating point support in gdb, but what > > about MMX (including 3dnow) registers? > > > > In my work with 3dnow, I used as a solution a routine which stored the 8 > > mmx registers in memory, and I just examined that instead... > > I haven't heard of anyone else working on this. Write a patch! :) I suspect that since one can already examine all 80 bits of the float registers (?) that this is just a matter of writing the display code. However, what do you do when the registers have so many different ways of being looked at? These come to mind: long double float[2] unsigned[4] signed[4] unsigned short[4] short[4] unsigned char[8] signed char[8] worse, one might wish for %mm0 to be a float[2] but %mm1 to be unsigned[4]. The type letters used by "x" are useful for this, but I'm not quite sure how they would apply to "print %mm0" or "info registers". Jeff -- \/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jepler/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+ >From jeni32935@yahoo.com Mon Apr 12 16:09:00 1999 From: "jeni32935@yahoo.com" To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: A Calista Flockheart strip tease (aka Ally McBeal) (147) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:09:00 -0000 Message-id: <14884.14507@mx10.mindspring.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00019.html Content-length: 286 Live sincity XXXClub pictures and videos. Featuring exclusive photos of... - Tommy Lee and Heather Locklear (before Pamela Anderson) - A Calista Flockheart strip tease (aka Ally McBeal) - Plus MUCH MUCH more http://38.150.73.20/boots/index.html ******************************* 99319 >From jtc@redback.com Mon Apr 12 19:21:00 1999 From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) To: gdb@cygnus.com Subject: remote protocol checksum and binary download Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:21:00 -0000 Message-id: <5m7lrhl3rw.fsf@jtc.redbacknetworks.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00020.html Content-length: 2578 First of all, while investigating this issue I decided to upgrade from 4.17.86 to 4.17.87 --- it appears that gdb-4.17.87.tar.gz is truncated. Now to the meat of the issue. With the advent of the binary memory write command, checksums may be eight bit values. However, both the sample stubs and the gdbserver program strip the high bit of all characters as they are received. This can cause the in-packet and computed checksums to disagree. GDB will retry the putpkt(), but since the problem is a fundamental difference in the checksum definition, each retry will result in a NAK. This wouldn't be (as much of) a problem if GDB was able to detect that the command was failing, but Like much of the rest of the remote protocol implementation, remote_write_bytes() contains code of the form: putpkt (buf); getpkt (buf, 0); (ie, the return value of putpkt() is not checked). Since the command was never received by the stub, the getpkt() will time out. Unfortunately, remote_write_bytes() does not disable the use of the 'X' command because buf[] will contain the string 'timeout' instead of '\0'. This problem raises a handful of issues, so I don't really know where to begin. * If the checksum only uses the least significant 7 bits, it may cause undetected problems if the connection is not 8 bit clean. While an 8 bit checksum may cause problems in stubs that are currently burned in firmware. * The return value of putpkt() should be examined. If a command was not received, there's no point waiting for a response. * Perhaps there should be a real return value for getpkt() to indicate errors, instead of overloading the return buffer. In any case, something useful should be done on getpkt() timeouts. I should have cought this before 4.18, but I got a bit caught up at work. However, it's pretty much a show-stopper for using the remote protocol on the x86, due to the 0xcc breakpoint insn pretty much ensuring checksum mismatches.. Perhaps the remotebinarydownload variable should default to 0. I suspect that of the four bulk transfers (memory read, memory write, register read, and register write), memory write is the least used. Register reads and writes are done all the time as you step through code; memory reads happen when you traverse data structures; but memory writes rarely happen in practice. I can't imagine anyone actually downloading code using the remote protocol --- net booting, ROM emulators, etc. are significantly less expensive than an engineer's time. --jtc -- J.T. Conklin RedBack Networks >From shebs@cygnus.com Mon Apr 12 20:04:00 1999 From: Stan Shebs To: jtc@redback.com Cc: gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: remote protocol checksum and binary download Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:04:00 -0000 Message-id: <199904130227.TAA17991@andros.cygnus.com> References: <5m7lrhl3rw.fsf@jtc.redbacknetworks.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00021.html Content-length: 2005 From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) Date: 12 Apr 1999 18:15:15 -0700 First of all, while investigating this issue I decided to upgrade from 4.17.86 to 4.17.87 --- it appears that gdb-4.17.87.tar.gz is truncated. Several other people got it to work, so maybe something ate your download? Anyway, jimb neglected to tell anyone here, but in fact the 4.18 release is out - and somebody has already found and reported a bad bug, in x86 Solaris. With the advent of the binary memory write command, checksums may be eight bit values. However, both the sample stubs and the gdbserver program strip the high bit of all characters as they are received. This can cause the in-packet and computed checksums to disagree. Yes, the binary download option has been no end of trouble - it's a good reminder of why we do a 7-bit protocol in the first place! You've identified some real problems, and I expect that Andrew C. and others will mobilize to bash on them. I should have cought this before 4.18, but I got a bit caught up at work. However, it's pretty much a show-stopper for using the remote protocol on the x86, due to the 0xcc breakpoint insn pretty much ensuring checksum mismatches.. Perhaps the remotebinarydownload variable should default to 0. Given that we'll probably have to do a point release to fix the x86 Solaris failure, this might be a good idea too for that release. (For some reason I thought it was already defaulting to 0, but the sources say no.) I can't imagine anyone actually downloading code using the remote protocol --- net booting, ROM emulators, etc. are significantly less expensive than an engineer's time. I think that's true for "serious" development - but for things like eval boards (Hitachi's for example), remote protocol is all you can afford. Since that's also a first impression for using GDB, it's a good idea to try to make it faster. Still, it's more important that it work correctly... Stan >From shebs@cygnus.com Mon Apr 12 20:56:00 1999 From: Stan Shebs To: gdb-testers@cygnus.com Subject: GDB Snapshot 19990412 Now Available Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:56:00 -0000 Message-id: <199904130315.UAA22604@andros.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-04/msg00022.html Content-length: 834 For those so hip that the 4.18 release is already passe', here is the first trunk snapshot since February: -rw-rw-r-- 1 shebs cygnus 43880 Apr 12 20:07 dejagnu-19990209-19990412.diff.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 shebs cygnus 2718211 Apr 12 20:07 dejagnu-19990412.tar.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 shebs cygnus 716081 Apr 12 20:07 gdb-19990209-19990412.diff.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 shebs cygnus 11656750 Apr 12 20:07 gdb-19990412.tar.gz As part of the transition to sourceware.cygnus.com, I've placed these files in both ftp://ftp.cygnus.com/private/gdb/ , as well as at sourceware.cygnus.com, in pub/gdb/snapshots. The GDB pages on the sourceware site are still pretty new, please feel free to comment on mistakes - we want to make those pages the best source of information and links for GDB developers and testers. Stan