From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17699 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2007 12:20:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 17691 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2007 12:20:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:20:26 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF6D982CE; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:20:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB87982A5; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:20:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I6mnP-00036j-Vq; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:20:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Robert Norton Cc: Jim Blandy , s88 , Wenbo Yang , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: What should a CPU simulator support? Message-ID: <20070706122023.GA11676@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Robert Norton , Jim Blandy , s88 , Wenbo Yang , gdb@sourceware.org References: <468C57AE.8020801@simplnano.com> <20070706120229.GB10648@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 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