Re: Available registers as a target property

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:55:59PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
> My sense is that the fundamental difference is where the information is
> described/contained, and how the choice of which description to use is
> conveyed to the GDB.  Although I may misunderstand, it seems more consistent
> to enable GDB to select which of N register models to assume based upon the
> target's identification, than requiring the target to supply a detailed
> description of it's own register model; thereby not requiring any otherwise
> unnecessary complexity be added to the target's GDB server implementation?

The proposal supports both.  This is the difference between
register/feature sets and individual registers.

All hardware does not fit into nice models that GDB can know about.  A
synthesized ARM core, for instance, can have arbitrary proprietary
coprocessors on it, designed by whoever synthesized the design.  Or
even in ia32 land, the set of MSRs available varies wildly, and it is
not GDB's business to track that level of details about every
x86-compatible processor ever made.

Maintaining a central registry of all register configurations is not
practical.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC