Re: What should a CPU simulator support?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 05:10:19AM -0700, Robert Norton wrote:
> OK. That's interesting. We support this too but I've always thought it a
> little cumbersome compared to built in simulator. Your stdin / out
> comment was interesting: I may look into this.

(Jim's comment actually.)  Yes, we find this very useful at
CodeSourcery; it's still a little cumbersome if you have no way to
give your users either an IDE or some automatic user-defined commands,
but if you can do either of those it's pretty much the same as typing
"target sim" from their perspective.

> Yeah that's pretty much what I figured. It'd be great if we could
> contribute, but unfortunately it's not my decision. All I can do is give
> bug reports and trivial fixes. I really appreciate your support though.

Right.  So, the summary here is that I recommend using the remote
protocol because it provides excellent long-term insulation from the
internals of GDB.  We try not to make backwards-incompatible changes
to the protocol, at least not without discussion and special
circumstances (e.g. no signs that anyone has used a feature in a
decade).  So there's no risk of the Z0 / Z1 packets disappearing,
unlike in the remote simulator.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery