* set processor command
@ 2002-10-29 2:00 Romain Berrendonner
2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Romain Berrendonner @ 2002-10-29 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
Hi folks,
I did a small comparison between gdb 5.0, 5.1 and gdb 5.2.1 (configured as
--target=powerpc-unknown-elf, solaris hosted) regarding the 'set processor'
command. The output is:
gdb 5.0:
--------
GDB knows about the following PowerPC and RS6000 variants:
ppc-uisa PowerPC UISA - a PPC processor as viewed by user-level code
rs6000 IBM RS6000 ("POWER") architecture, user-level view
403 IBM PowerPC 403
403GC IBM PowerPC 403GC
505 Motorola PowerPC 505
860 Motorola PowerPC 860 or 850
601 Motorola PowerPC 601
602 Motorola PowerPC 602
603 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 603 or 603e
604 Motorola PowerPC 604 or 604e
750 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 750 or 740
gdb 5.1:
--------
Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto.
gdb 5.2.1:
----------
Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, auto.
As you may see, the definition of the variants of powerpc vary considerably
from one version to another, and I would like to know what will be the
futur of this command: it looks like it is being deprecated, with less and
less variants supported. Is that true ? Or is it only that the existing code
is more generic ?
Thanks,
--
Romain
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: set processor command 2002-10-29 2:00 set processor command Romain Berrendonner @ 2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney 2002-11-01 6:18 ` Elena Zannoni 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-30 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Romain Berrendonner; +Cc: gdb > Hi folks, > > I did a small comparison between gdb 5.0, 5.1 and gdb 5.2.1 (configured as > --target=powerpc-unknown-elf, solaris hosted) regarding the 'set processor' > command. The output is: > > gdb 5.0: > -------- > GDB knows about the following PowerPC and RS6000 variants: > ppc-uisa PowerPC UISA - a PPC processor as viewed by user-level code > rs6000 IBM RS6000 ("POWER") architecture, user-level view > 403 IBM PowerPC 403 > 403GC IBM PowerPC 403GC > 505 Motorola PowerPC 505 > 860 Motorola PowerPC 860 or 850 > 601 Motorola PowerPC 601 > 602 Motorola PowerPC 602 > 603 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 603 or 603e > 604 Motorola PowerPC 604 or 604e > 750 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 750 or 740 > > gdb 5.1: > -------- > Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto. > > gdb 5.2.1: > ---------- > Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, auto. > > As you may see, the definition of the variants of powerpc vary considerably > from one version to another, and I would like to know what will be the > futur of this command: it looks like it is being deprecated, with less and > less variants supported. Is that true ? Or is it only that the existing code > is more generic ? The code was rationalied (across a number of architectures) and also made very generic. GDB ``supports'' any architecture/machine that is both: - known by bfd - known by gdb It's included in the list. The names are obtained via a query to BFD. A useful new feature (BFD and GDB) might be to also obtain a brief description of the architecture/machine. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: set processor command 2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney @ 2002-11-01 6:18 ` Elena Zannoni 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Elena Zannoni @ 2002-11-01 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: Romain Berrendonner, gdb Andrew Cagney writes: > > Hi folks, > > > > I did a small comparison between gdb 5.0, 5.1 and gdb 5.2.1 (configured as > > --target=powerpc-unknown-elf, solaris hosted) regarding the 'set processor' > > command. The output is: > > > > gdb 5.0: > > -------- > > GDB knows about the following PowerPC and RS6000 variants: > > ppc-uisa PowerPC UISA - a PPC processor as viewed by user-level code > > rs6000 IBM RS6000 ("POWER") architecture, user-level view > > 403 IBM PowerPC 403 > > 403GC IBM PowerPC 403GC > > 505 Motorola PowerPC 505 > > 860 Motorola PowerPC 860 or 850 > > 601 Motorola PowerPC 601 > > 602 Motorola PowerPC 602 > > 603 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 603 or 603e > > 604 Motorola PowerPC 604 or 604e > > 750 Motorola/IBM PowerPC 750 or 740 > > > > gdb 5.1: > > -------- > > Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto. > > > > gdb 5.2.1: > > ---------- > > Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, auto. > > > > As you may see, the definition of the variants of powerpc vary considerably > > from one version to another, and I would like to know what will be the > > futur of this command: it looks like it is being deprecated, with less and > > less variants supported. Is that true ? Or is it only that the existing code > > is more generic ? > > The code was rationalied (across a number of architectures) and also > made very generic. GDB ``supports'' any architecture/machine that is both: > > - known by bfd > - known by gdb > > It's included in the list. The names are obtained via a query to BFD. > > A useful new feature (BFD and GDB) might be to also obtain a brief > description of the architecture/machine. Yes, but I think that the 5.2.1 version was only returning the rs6000 variants, which was a bug, and I think this was fixed when I did the e500 support. The CVS head version of gdb returns the following now, which is the correct set: (gdb) set processor Requires an argument. Valid arguments are rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common, powerpc:common64, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:e500, powerpc:MPC8XX, auto. Elena > > Andrew > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-11-01 14:18 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-10-29 2:00 set processor command Romain Berrendonner 2002-10-30 6:09 ` Andrew Cagney 2002-11-01 6:18 ` Elena Zannoni
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox