From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1389 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2005 10:18:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 1382 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2005 10:18:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sohm.kpit.com (HELO sohm.kpit.com) (203.197.93.231) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:18:40 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: regarding problem in porting gdb Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <4A1BE23A7B777442B60F4B4916AE0F13094BF11E@sohm.kpit.com> From: "Shrirang Khishti" To: Cc: Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 Hi Jim=20 Thanks for your help and changes suggested by you. But in our target GCC we have added a different memory model which handles 32 bits of address size and for that we are not getting any problem. But for the memory model for which I am facing the problem we don't need 32 bits address size(For this model code size is limited to 64K but situated at some far address). So in this case it is as good as debug info is showing virtual addresses related to program counter=20 Also regarding ADDRESS_TO_POINTER and POINTER_TO_ADDRESS hooks , I observed that these are not coming in the picture while setting the break point or single stepping.=20 =09 Is there any other way by which I can handle this situation in GDB?=20 Thanking you in advance Regards Shrirang Khisti KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd.