Re: PowerPC 405 support

[Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 07:26:22PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> 
>>I was looking at adding support to GDB for a variant of
>>the PPC 405.  This variant has several added instructions
>>but is otherwise the same, i.e., has the same registers, etc.
>>
>>I thought I'd add a processor type named Xppc405 or ppc405X
>>for this variant.  Then I noticed that the 405 is really
>>not supported as a variant, but the 403 is, and that the 403
>>has extensions (and at least one hack) for the 405.  There
>>are opcodes defined for PPC405, but this symbol is aliased
>>to PPC403.
>>
>>It looks pretty straight-forward to create a ppc405 variant
>>and unalias it from the ppc403.  Then create a ppc405X
>>variant which builds on the ppc405.  Any reason not to do
>>this?
> 
> 
> I'm going to guess here, but probably this would be a better suited
> question for binutils@.  GDB doesn't really have much knowledge about
> PPC variants, just the bits it inherits from libopcodes.

Maybe so.  Most are handled by the opcode tables and bfd.
I'll ask on the binutils list.

There is some PPC variant code in rs6000-tdep.c, defining
recognized variant names, defining registers and referencing
the correct bfd entry.

-- 
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077