From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10040 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2002 23:37:13 -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 10031 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2002 23:37:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05bw.bigpond.com) (139.134.6.95) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2002 23:37:11 -0000 Received: from neurizon.net ([144.135.24.75]) by mta05bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta05bw Jul 16 2002 22:47:55) with SMTP id H67IXX00.1I0 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:37:09 +1000 Received: from CPE-203-51-197-39.qld.bigpond.net.au ([203.51.197.39]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0n 20/8334462); 27 Nov 2002 09:37:09 Message-ID: <3DE40436.4060102@neurizon.net> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:37:00 -0000 From: Steven Johnson Organization: Neurizon Pty Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: compatibility between gdb and stub References: <20021118140945.GF1252@torino.act-europe.fr> <1021118225613.ZM5538@localhost.localdomain> <20021119092051.GD1217@torino.act-europe.fr> <1021120210450.ZM24337@localhost.localdomain> <20021121094419.GB8709@torino.act-europe.fr> <3DE3EE0E.4010009@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 The real problem here is that the Common Registers of PowerPC are not uniform across the chips. I think the only ones that can truly be said to be common are R0-R31,pc,msr,lr,ctr,flags The macros defined, assume a whole lot about what is common, that isn't. And having written an "old stub" for the MPC860, I can confidently say that old stubs did not supply zeros where fpscr is, they didn't send anything as GDB did not expect anything. Obviously there would need to be some understanding in the stub of what registers GDB used, but I fail to see that GDB is ever going to permenantly define a packet layout and stick to it. Steven > > No. An old stub would supply zeros instead of "fpscr". > >> This is clumsy, but the 'qRegisters' packet should improve this >> behaviour :-) > > > qRegisters isn't a `silver bullet' :-/ The bottom line is that GDB and > the stub need to agree to a packet layout and then stick to it. > > Andrew > > >