From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32598 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2002 16:46:09 -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 32514 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2002 16:46:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dublin.ACT-Europe.FR) (212.157.227.154) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2002 16:46:03 -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 BEA0D229E0C; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:46:01 +0100 (MET) Received: by torino.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 13AC7F404; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:46:01 +0500 (GMT-5) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:46:00 -0000 From: Romain Berrendonner To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: compatibility between gdb and stub Message-ID: <20021118164600.GG1252@torino.act-europe.fr> References: <20021118140945.GF1252@torino.act-europe.fr> <3DD90FDC.4090603@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DD90FDC.4090603@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 On 2002-11-18, Andrew Cagney wrote : > Almost. GDB can change it's architecture, and hence, supported register > set. See the command `set architecture'. Well, my understanding is that it is usefull if you want to define several variants in a family of processors, but if a given variant's definition changes, how can the stub deal with this ? > As for the underlying problem. remote.c is probably 50% through an > overhaul that removes the restrictions such as you describe (its been in > that state for a few months. Interested?). I'm glad to hear that. I guess that it will significantly change the definition of the remote protocol ? -- Romain