This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices.

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at buzzard dot freeserve dot co dot uk>
Cc: Kazu Hirata <kazu at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:41:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices.
References: <20100609140312.291855664EF@henry1.codesourcery.com> <4C101E0B.4040006@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk>

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:04:43AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> It looks to me as though this code should also mostly apply to ARMv6M
> as well (coretex-m0/1).  However, the choice of name
> 'org.gnu.gdb.arm.core-v7m' seems to suggest otherwise.  Is there
> really a difference between the support needed for these cores?  Or
> would a more suitable name be appropriate?

Historical note: it's this way because the patch predated v6m.  We
need to support the v7m name internally for compatibility, but we
can rename the official version if you like.

I can imagine GDB wanting to know about BASEPRI / FAULTMASK.  But we
provide the privileged registers in another "feature" today, and use
this core-v7m feature with both v6-m and v7-m.  So
'org.gnu.gdb.amr.core-m' instead?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices.
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

References:
- [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices.
  - From: Kazu Hirata
- Re: [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices.
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]