From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3604 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2008 11:25:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 3596 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2008 11:25:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from f178.mail.ru (HELO f178.mail.ru) (194.67.57.199) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:24:58 +0000 Received: from mail by f178.mail.ru with local id 1K9ejf-000MCz-00 for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:24:55 +0400 Received: from [212.92.145.7] by win.mail.ru with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:24:55 +0400 From: Dmitry Smirnov To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: =?koi8-r?Q?Re=3A_THUMB_code_detection_for_ADS_1.2_ELF_emages?= Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:25:00 -0000 Reply-To: Dmitry Smirnov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: X-Spam: Not detected 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 Hi Stan, Dan, Thanks for pointing this new feature. I hope it will helps me. P.S. What do you mean by "toolchain is not marking the executable correctly"? I suppose that ADS produce the ELF that is not compartible with latest ARM ELF specs. At least, it specifies ELF as an 0x2000000 version, whereas GDB recognizes 0x4000000+. I believe executable is correct. It mixes ARM and THUMB code. It runs on a real hardware, I can debug it with TRACE32 using this ELF. I'm trying to run this ELF on skyeye (and it runs!), but cannot debug it "in full-power" with GDB. Stan Shebs wrote: >Dan Jacobowitz added this bit of machinery recently; see >http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-05/msg00113.html . He points >out that this should be a rare case, only needed if Arm and Thumb code >are mixed within a single file; so if your GDB is having trouble >detecting Thumb code, maybe there is some other problem, perhaps the >toolchain is not marking the executable correctly? > >Stan