Experimental Support for Microblaze 64-bit Architecture - binutils and gdb

[Gopi Kumar Bulusu]

namaskaram

Here is my thinking --

As  gas/ld/rob (rest of binutils) are producers of elf and gdb is a
consumer adding experimental microblaze 64-bit support patches  in the
former (bfd)  and not latter will mean gdb built from the exact same
binutils-gdb code base won't be able to process the mb64 binaries and any
one planning to run/debug the binaries with gdb will not be able to do so.
Also the reason for starting with binutils-gdb before contributing
patches to gcc.

Also, as part of this effort I had to merge
bintutils binutils-gdb and gdb binutils-gdb patches for the target from
Xilinx git that have over the years digressed. I think It will be a good
idea to keep them in sync as part of this effort.

dhanyavadam
Gopi

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, 1:26 AM Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> wrote:

>
>
> On 2024-07-09 03:16, Gopi Kumar Bulusu wrote:
> > namaskaram
> >
> > I am planning to submit a set of patches on behalf of Xilinx/AMD for
> addition of support for Microblaze 64-bit instruction set architecture.
> >
> > There is no separate target for Microblaze 64-bit, changes are in the
> form of patches for existing Microblaze 32-bit target and the patches may
> include other
> > general improvements (defect fixes).
> >
> > I have read the contributor checklists for both binutils and gdb.
> >
> > I can't think of a  way to submit patches for binutils only without
> breaking support for Microblaze target in gdb - so planning to submit a
> single patch set.
>
> Can you explain why submitting patches to binutils first would break
> the Microblaze target in gdb?
>
> Simon
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20240712/b9fce5a6/attachment.htm>