From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10616 invoked by alias); 1 May 2008 03:32:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 10597 invoked by uid 22791); 1 May 2008 03:32:38 -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; Thu, 01 May 2008 03:32:18 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56F8983DA; Thu, 1 May 2008 03:32:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0591982C4; Thu, 1 May 2008 03:32:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JrPWp-00007Z-Ue; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:32:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 03:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: the "load" command and the .bss section Message-ID: <20080501033215.GA32600@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb@sourceware.org References: <200804270509.34308.vapier@gentoo.org> <1209406914.4615.297.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200804302010.59482.vapier@gentoo.org> <1209607380.4615.388.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1209607380.4615.388.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 07:03:00PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > That's why there are different implementations of "load". > A bare-metal target would presumably wind up using the > appropriate "load" version. Well that's probably why historically there _were_ different implementations of load. But I doubt it is still justified. Only the three m32r targets, the remote-mips target (for specific monitors), remote-sim, and target remote have implementations of load. It looks to me like target remote's would work for all of them except the sim. m32r is just using a wrapper around generic_load already. monitor and mips are using srec but could do that anyway for large writes. Presumably, at least. But I have no way to test any of them so I leave them alone. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery