From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17285 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 16:38:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 17277 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 16:38:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:38:35 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F2A8m-0001zF-72 for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:38:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Using XML in GDB? Message-ID: <20060126163832.GA7113@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060126055744.GA29647@nevyn.them.org> <43D8BB89.4090900@st.com> <20060126134124.GA3107@nevyn.them.org> <43D8E573.1060004@st.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43D8E573.1060004@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 03:06:27PM +0000, Andrew STUBBS wrote: > That sounds good. We have been considering doing something with memory > mapped registers (devices, exception/interrupt reason codes, etc.), and > this might be the answer. Would you expose them as registers, or as memory mapped I/O, from the stub? If the latter, what sort of information would you want GDB to have about them, and how would you present them to the user or frontend? > Specifically, the data we need/want GDB to know about the target are as > follows: > - architecture variant (i.e. what registers and instructions are valid); > - endian; While I'm not covering these at the moment, I do plan to. Right now I'm focusing on... > - non-core control/information registers; ... registers otherwise unknown to GDB. Completely target-specific features work too. > None of this directly addresses the question of XML, but it does > represent the sort of thing (some) users are looking to do, and > therefore what 'extensibility' might entail. Of course, I'm still not > sure exactly what you envisage as the limits of the interface. I'll be posting more about this real soon, I hope. It's coming together; I just wanted to have it a little more baked before I posted it. > Speaking of XML, are you aware of the SPIRIT SOC definition standard > (http://www.spiritconsortium.com) which contains some things that the > debugger might be interested in (and much in which it is not). I've no > idea how compatible they are, but it might be nice if GDB could pull > relevant information out of one of these. I've vaguely heard of SPIRIT, but never any details. Does it contain a useful amount of information that GDB might care about? I'm not going to pursue this for now because of IP issues; the terms on the SPIRIT documents make me leery of using them for an open source program, at least without talking to a lawyer about it first. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery