Re: Towards better x86 system debugging support

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:34:00PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> The question for me is how to extend the protocol precisely. I guess we
>> need some new qSupported feature. But should we then, if both sides
>> agreed on it, switch to a completely new register set or rather exchange
>> those additional registers separately, ie. via some new packet?
> 
> No new feature required.  Take a look at the description of
> target-described registers in the current manual; we'd just need
> a naming convention for the x86 control registers of interest to GDB.
> That solves your other issue too about width.

Ah, of course, once again forgot about this.

So another convention would be that a target capable of up to 32 bit
mode would report its registers as 32 bit and a 64 bit target as 64 bit
- and they would transfer this width _independent_ of the current mode.
That leads me to the questions:

 o Roughly, what code changes are required to exchange some i386.xml or
   x86-64.xml?

 o If gdb accepted such a static XML description from some x86 target,
   would it already stick with the register layout even when setting the
   arch manually (or later automatically)?

Thanks,
Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]