This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Short g/G packets?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:17:17 -0500
- Subject: Short g/G packets?
Hi Andrew,
I came across this comment in remote.c today:
+ /* A short packet that didn't include the register's
+ value, this implies that the register is zero (and
+ not that the register is unavailable). Supply that
+ zero value. */
And these two supporting emails:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2001-11/msg00164.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2003-12/msg00070.html
But that's all I can find - it's not in the manual, it's not used by any
stubs that I could get ahold of to check, et cetera. Do you have a
reference for this interpretation? Do you know any stubs taking advantage
of it?
I'm working on better handling for unavailable registers at the moment,
and automatic use of both g/G and p/P in the same session. I'm planning
to assume that registers not reported in the g packet response are
not part of the g packet, and try querying for them with p packets
if the target supports those; this is more logical behavior. This
fits just fine with the current documentation, but not with the
implementation.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery