From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26045 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2009 18:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 26032 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2009 18:44:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr1.ericy.com (HELO imr1.ericy.com) (198.24.6.9) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:44:12 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5FIiABq004777; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:44:10 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:44:10 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: MI register groups Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA079763F9@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA079763AC@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Marc Khouzam" To: "Chris Genly" Cc: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Genly [mailto:chgenly@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: June-15-09 2:41 PM > To: Marc Khouzam > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > Subject: Re: MI register groups >=20 > Yes I saw that. Thanks. You are right that it would=20 > probably be easier. But I'd prefer to contribute to the=20 > Eclipse DSF project rather than having to apply patches to my=20 > source every time a new DSF is released. I'm hoping in the=20 > long run defining register groups in MI and providing patches=20 > to the DSF people will be less work. We'll see. I may regret it. :-) That would be most welcome. And I now realized that -your- debugger must support register groups. I missed that on the first email, and thought you wanted to use GDB. >=20 >=20 > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Marc Khouzam=20 > wrote: >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org > > [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Chris Genly > > Sent: June-15-09 2:10 PM > > To: gdb@sourceware.org > > Subject: MI register groups > > > > I'm working on an Eclipse interface to a debugger=20 > produced by the > > company I work for. I notice Both GDB and Eclipse=20 > support the concept > > of register groups. But MI does not support the=20 > concept of register > > groups. I'd like to extend the MI spec to include=20 > register groups. > > Who would I talk to about this? >=20=09 >=20=09 > Just for your knowledge, the Eclipse CDT integration of=20 > GDB does provide > register groups, but it seems to be done within eclipse. > I didn't work on it myself, but I found this comment: >=20=09 > /** > * For the GDB GDBMI implementation there is only on=20 > group. The GPR and FPU registers are grouped into > * one set. We are going to hard wire this set as the=20 > "General Registers". > */ >=20=09 > And then everything about register groups is being done=20 > without using MI or GDB. > If such an approach is sufficient for you, it would be=20 > much easier to get done. >=20=09 > Marc >=20=09 >=20 >=20 >=20