Re: [remote] Make registers network byteordered?

[fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

: [..]
: At present the target sends back registers in target byte order format
: vis:
: 	T0525:c4060280ffffffff;1d:c0ffff81ffffffff;
: I'd like to think about a [tweak] to this part of the protocol so that the
: format:
: 	T0525=ffffffff80020664;1d=ffffffff81ffffc0;
: is accepted.  [...]

How are gdb and the target supposed to pick the right scheme?  Do you
imagine some sort of prior negotiation?

- FChE
From jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com Tue Dec 05 14:27:00 2000
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
To: Denset.Serralta@radisys.com
Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: GDB does not step into or over "sleep" function
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:27:00 -0000
Message-id: <np3dg28pxs.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
References: <OF9A6588DE.02D8BDD2-ON852569A8.006B6937@radisys.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00024.html
Content-length: 877

> You are correct. The breakpoint in  "...some more code ..." is never
> reached. We are suspecting
> at the moment that it is a problem with the ProcessSleep function since the
> hang occurrs when we
> 'step into' or 'step over' it. What we don't know is whether it is a
> problem with our underlying kernel
> functions or whether GDB has a problem with a "sleep" function which
> allocates a semaphore,
> blocks on it subject to a user specified timeout and then returns the
> semaphore. We are leaning
> to suspecting that it is a problem with our custom kernel (i.e. GDB is
> innocent). However I thought
> I would ask the GDB group, with all the combined experience developing GDB,
> just in case they
> saw something obvious.

Yes, this sounds like a bug in the OS.  Or perhaps your GDB stub is
interfering with some interrupt handling needed to implement
ProcessSleep.