From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: gdb@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: breakpoint extension for remote protocol
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <3692A11C.B5024D4A@cygnus.com>
References: <ac131313@cygnus.com> <199901050119.RAA19672.cygnus.gdb@jtc.redbacknetworks.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-q1/msg00010.html

"J.T. Conklin" wrote:

>   (IMO having "generic" embedded toolchains is essential.  It makes no
>   sense to have multiple toolchains for essentially the same processor
>   (ie. sparc, sparclite, sparclet, etc.) when one would do.)

Agreed.

I think that the difficulties encountered when trying to support cpu variants
within a single GDB are more of a reflection on the GDB architecture then a
problem with the idea of having the debug smarts on the host (rather than the
target).

As Stan noted:

> Those who study recent snapshots will notice that we are doing some
> internal cleanup that will make it easier to support CPU variants
> without kludging.
>

    enjoy,

        Andrew