This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Basic structure to describe register formats
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:50:17PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>Almost approved, I've been pokeing at random targets that once worked
> >>and they have now all been broken by multi-arch.
> >>>@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> >>My only quarm is with this. It extends the G packet definition a little
> >>- lines with a leading letter get ignored just like comments and blanks.
> >Do we even have such a definition? I didn't think we did yet.
> We have what I posted a while back :-)
> >If so, then yes, I think that's a good extension. Also I would commit
> >it with the number in bits rather than bytes.
> You mean - 32:r1?
> I think the ``4'' indicates 4*2 hex digits. Digit pairs ordered either
> big or little endian. Yes it could be bits, however, the value would
> always need to be divisible by 8.
No, I don't think it needs to be divisible by 8. If it did I wouldn't
feel the need to represent the 8.
- ia64 has 1-bit registers that we currently transmit as either bytes
or words, IIRC.
- someone mentioned recently working on a non-8-bit target for GDB,
but he wasn't quite ready to contribute it.
But it will be divisible by 8 for now, so we'll just ignore that for
> >>Any way I think EXPEDITE to better word for describing what is to be
> >>done with those registers. SID uses that word to describe this exact
> >>same list.
> >That's a good word for what's going on here, I quite like it. OK with
> >that change?
Committed with updates. I settled on putting both the header and shell
script in with the data files for now, unless we decide we need them
Next, code to use them. Did you reach a decision about preserving
existing targets? I would like to:
- Mark OBSOLETE, or perhaps CURRENTLY OBSOLETE, NEEDS WORK the other
(non-Linux in this pass) targets.
- Fix Linux targets cleanly.
- Get at least *BSD fixed soon, which should not be hard.
- Accompanying changes to configury at each stage.
It'll save me a lot of general aggravation to do it the way I outline
above, and I think that was the consensus, but I'd like to know before
I sit down and do it.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer