From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: GDB Discussion Subject: Re: [remote] Make registers network byteordered? Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 13:03:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3A2C4305.6D9E53B3@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00023.html Andrew Cagney 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 To: Denset.Serralta@radisys.com Cc: Jim Blandy , 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: References: 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.