This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Remote protocol extension for register ranges
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Remote protocol extension for register ranges
- From: jtc at redback dot com (J.T. Conklin)
- Date: 23 Mar 2000 15:17:44 -0800
- Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <38D8CFA4.C3535C93@redhat.com> <38D9CADE.2FF02871@cygnus.com>
- Reply-To: jtc at redback dot com
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
Andrew> The idea to include the ``context'' (J.T.s word) in the request is
Andrew> interesting. At present, switching ``contexts'' implicitly switches
Andrew> both the address space and the register file. We'd need to figure out
Andrew> if all commands should take that. J.T. Have you ever thought of a cpu
Andrew> as a context? Considered the possibility of different contexts having
Andrew> different architectures?
The environment I was thinking of when I decided to use the word
"context" was a system with multiple processes, where each process had
one or more threads. In the past, we've talked about extending GDB to
be able to debug such systems, and I wanted to ensure that a new debug
protocol would be able to handle it. I never thought of a CPU as a
context, much less different context having different architectures.
But I can't think of a reason why we couldn't support that.
--jtc
--
J.T. Conklin
RedBack Networks