From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Blandy To: Stan Shebs Cc: jtc@redbacknetworks.com, cagney@cygnus.com, gdb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: breakpoint extension for remote protocol Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <199901052033.MAA17166@andros.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-q1/msg00037.html For the record, Zdenek Radouch pointed out a while back on the internal GDB mailing list a distinction that I liked: There are actually three "architectures" that we care about: - the architecture of the processor itself - the ABI and calling conventions (controlled by the compiler/linker environment) - the target board architecture (excluding the CPU) At present, we kind of smoosh them all together, which causes confusion when someone else needs to wade into our code and disentangle our assumptions. We support multiple ABI's for the MIPS and PPC (at least), and (I think???) you have to select the one you want at configuration time (--target=powerpc-eabi, for example). So we are already drifting away from "generic" embedded toolchains, which I agree is bad. When we estimate new GDB ports, we should include time to actually segregate those three things nicely, so that GDB could have a "set abi" and "set board" command. Otherwise, if GDB is really to know all that stuff (as Stan has said it should), it's going to be a total mess.