From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6520 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2002 14:09:50 -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 6481 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2002 14:09:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dublin.ACT-Europe.FR) (212.157.227.154) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2002 14:09:46 -0000 Received: from torino.act-europe.fr (torino.int.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.130]) by dublin.ACT-Europe.FR (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9450E229E15 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:09:45 +0100 (MET) Received: by torino.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3C3DEF404; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:09:45 +0500 (GMT-5) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:09:00 -0000 From: Romain Berrendonner To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: compatibility between gdb and stub Message-ID: <20021118140945.GF1252@torino.act-europe.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 Hi folks, I would like to know what is the policy regarding the compatibility between gdb and the target stubs: as far as I understand, the way `g' and 'G' commands work requires that the debugger and the stub have the very same definition of the target's registers. The file rs6000-tdep.c however, which was very similar in gdb 5.1 and gdb 5.2, changed in the 5.3 branch, causing interoperability disruption with older stubs, due to the definition of fpscr. Is this correct ? Is there a policy for handling that kind of issues ? -- Romain