Lavu Sridhar wrote: > > I have the file gdb 5.0 . I had to make changes in the gdb/makefile to > enable the target rdi debugging. > You should not change anything. Use the original gdb 5 tar file. No changes are necessary to debug Angel targets. But this is irrelevant (see below). > When I had done ./configure in the main directory, it was configuring gdb > for host i686 and target also i686, where as I want the target to be my > Cirrus Logic Arm 7500FE Baord. I do not know how to sepcify the exact > option for this arm processor. Currently the board has only the ANGEL > debugger program running. > Again you did not send me the configure command that you used. However, it is clear from your description that you did not read the instructions on how to build it. Please do so before asking for help on the net groups/lists. (Read the FAQs as well when they exist). Your configure line will need a --target=arm-elf or a --target=arm-coff for the kind of board you have. But, again, it won't do what you need... > I already have the vmlinux, and the zImage files for the Linxu kernel > 2.3.99 . My host PC is RedHat 6.1 and i686 architecture. > > I am using the gdb mainly for downloading the image files into the RAM on > my target baord from my Host PC. > You are definitively in the wrong track AND in the wrong list. The zImage file is not in a format that gdb can understand. vmlinus is (elf) but this is of no use to you. I'd suggest you look at LILO (the arm version or arm equivalent of it) and try to write some boot ROM code that either does what it does or loads it from floppy or something. But this is a topic for the ARM Linux mailing list. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@cygnus.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Tel: 416-482-2661 ext. 311 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 Fax: 416-482-6299 From donnte@microsoft.com Fri May 26 10:30:00 2000 From: Donn Terry To: Donn Terry , Mark Mitchell , rth@cygnus.com Cc: kettenis@wins.uva.nl, Peter.Schauer@Regent.E-Technik.TU-Muenchen.DE, kingdon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: RE: Suggested (easier) fix to ... RE: Regressions problem (200 failures) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:30:00 -0000 Message-id: <309F4FC4705DC844987051A517E9E39B09D1C2@red-pt-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-05/msg00139.html Content-length: 2262 Title: RE: Suggested (easier) fix to ... RE: Regressions problem (200 fa ilures) And a bit more... the rebuild/regression did succeed (after some tweaking) and the problem with __main is in the current CVS as well.   Donn -----Original Message----- From: Donn Terry Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 8:23 PM To: Mark Mitchell; rth@cygnus.com Cc: kettenis@wins.uva.nl; Peter.Schauer@Regent.E-Technik.TU-Muenchen.DE; kingdon@redhat.com; gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: RE: Suggested (easier) fix to ... RE: Regressions problem (200 failures) Mark:   I just tried to rebuild with my interim patch in place, and found that RTH had completely rewritten the area.  If I don't run into too many ICEs during the rebuild of the compiler suite (it comes and goes regularly depending on who has patched what) I'll know something tomorrow (Fri) about what effect his changes had on this, but from  looking at the code, it may have the same problem.  (I'm skipping my patch for the moment.)   Richard: quick synopsis: the code in this area doesn't (didn't?) take into account the possibility of there being a call to __main, with the consequence that the initial breakpoint for main ends up at the {, rather than at the first statement *if* the call to __main is generated.   Donn -----Original Message----- From: Mark Mitchell Sent: Thu 5/25/2000 8:46 AM To: Donn Terry Cc: kettenis@wins.uva.nl; Peter.Schauer@Regent.E-Technik.TU-Muenchen.DE; kingdon@redhat.com; gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: RE: Suggested (easier) fix to ... RE: Regressions problem (200 fa ilures) >>>>> "Donn" == Donn Terry writes:     Donn> I can't answer why any better than the author of the change     Donn> that started all this ;-) . Touche. OK, now I understand the problem -- thanks to you.  I'll look back at why I did what I did -- and then see if I can figure out how to fix it. Thanks for bearing with me on this. -- Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com