From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16639 invoked by alias); 9 May 2008 17:26:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 16631 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2008 17:26:48 -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, 09 May 2008 17:26:26 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CC4983F1; Fri, 9 May 2008 17:26:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3313983EA; Fri, 9 May 2008 17:26:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JuWMS-000314-0w; Fri, 09 May 2008 13:26:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 17:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Anmol P. Paralkar" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Question on 'set tdesc filename '. Message-ID: <20080509172623.GA11310@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Anmol P. Paralkar" , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20080509165845.GA8827@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (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/msg00080.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 12:18:21PM -0500, Anmol P. Paralkar wrote: > Oh, OK. So in these cases, the register ordering in the description > had better match-up what the remote-stub (implements and) sends - I > mean, since in the case where the remote side sends the > description, this is automatically ensured as GDB parses in the > XML. I follow why the command is needed, thanks. Right. >> They are provided as reference, but also built-in to both GDB and >> gdbserver for internal use. > > So, in the case of PowerPC, the [pu]trace interface would only provide the standard 71 > registers; what if we want to contribute back a description that defines more than those? > Is it OK for a description to have more than what the [pu]trace interface provides, since > you say that this gets built-in to GDB & gdbserver? Specific descriptions are built in when GDB or gdbserver needs them. Not every description is. If you have new components to describe, they won't go in the same descriptions that gdbserver is currently using. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery