Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Fix for remote G Packet message too long error for baremetal.

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 06/30/2014 12:13 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 4:25 PM
> To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Michael Eager; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Fix for remote G Packet message too long error for baremetal.
> 
> On 06/30/2014 11:32 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>>     Signed-off-by:Ajit Agarwal ajitkum@xilinx.com
>>
>>>> In this case is it correct to say
>>>> If (tdesc  == NULL)
>>>>   tdesc = tdesc_microblaze;
>>>>
>>>> instead of tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect?
>>>>>> Yes.
>> Instead of tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect if I use tdesc_microblaze  the "G Packet message is too long" error is not resolved.
> 
>>> Then it sounds like the G packet size guesses you're adding aren't actually triggering.  Why?
> 
> I have checked the guesses are actually triggering as it works fine with backward compatibility with the Designs there is no stack-protect registers. For the Design that has the 
> Stack protect register, it reports the message " G packet too long ". 

If the G guess is triggering OK, and so GDB picks the description with the
stack protect registers based on the G packet size, why would the default
target description matter at all?  If it does, then something sounds broken.
What are you doing different from the other ports that use this mechanism?
Please debug this a bit further.

-- 
Pedro Alves