Re: Available registers as a target property

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 12:53:48AM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - actually arm "extensible architecture" is fairly rigid, and arguably
>   far less "customizable" than those offered by ARC or Tensilica for
>   example; and is likely best characterized as being extended via
>   co-processor extensions not an innate extension/customization of the
>   arm ISA or processor implementation core architecture itself.

... which GDB also needs to support.

> > ARM's approach to this problem was to encapsulate the description
> > in the module server, which is distributed with the target
> > configuration.  Anything that wants the configuration can query the
> > target for it.  That seems a lot more useful to me - rather than
> > centralizing the registry, distribute it locally to every target it
> > describes.
> 
> - so you propose that GNU tools adopt a reliance on a proprietary vendor
>   data base "module server" in order to configure tools to support that
>   vendors proprietary licensed architecture?

Please limit yourself to constructive comments instead of accusations;
it's apparent that you aren't familiar with RDI (not surprising, since
I don't believe the documentation is publicly available), and that you
haven't really thought about what I'm suggesting.  Hint: all the
necessary information can be provided by gdbserver, and will be.  Linux
KGDB stubs also have enough information to provide this data, and
hopefully will once GDB supports it.  I'm sure some free software
simulation systems will also.

We've gotten way off topic at this point.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC