From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21908 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2002 16:05:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21851 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2002 16:05:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2002 16:05:52 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBCD3E4B; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:05:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DD90FDC.4090603@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Romain Berrendonner Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: compatibility between gdb and stub References: <20021118140945.GF1252@torino.act-europe.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 > Hi folks, > > I would like to know what is the policy regarding the compatibility > between gdb and the target stubs: as far as I understand, the way `g' > and 'G' commands work requires that the debugger and the stub have the > very same definition of the target's registers. > > The file rs6000-tdep.c however, which was very similar in gdb 5.1 and > gdb 5.2, changed in the 5.3 branch, causing interoperability disruption > with older stubs, due to the definition of fpscr. > > Is this correct ? Is there a policy for handling that kind of issues ? Almost. GDB can change it's architecture, and hence, supported register set. See the command `set architecture'. As for the underlying problem. remote.c is probably 50% through an overhaul that removes the restrictions such as you describe (its been in that state for a few months. Interested?). enjoy, Andrew