Re: multi-arch (was Re: Makefile setting)

[Stephane dot Bihan at arccores dot com]

> >
> > That's a really good idea this multi-arch proposal!
>
> A better description is probably a road map.  MIPS, IA-64, D10V already
> make use of the basic framework  Several others (mn10300, SPARC, i386)
> are all well down that same path.  The rs6000 and SH are both on the hit
> list.

I can't see any multi-arch implementation in the current gdb-4.18 sources. I
can't see either any IA64 port.

>
> > Just a shame I didn't read the paper before.
> > I've implemented the REGISTER_NAMES initialisation in another way now.
> > And I haven't got too much time to change it before sending you the
sources of
> > our ARC port.
>
> To be clear and up front.
>
> If someone contributes support for some new architecture then that new
> architecture will need to use the multi-arch framework (see IA-64).
>
> If someone contributes changes/fixes to an old target/architecture
> (which would be your case I think) then those changes will need to be in
> line with the general direction that multi-arch is taking.  Post the
> changes and lets see where it stands.

There is quite a few changes actually.
there is the simulator developped by Chameleon Inc, a remote-arc target (which
is a copy of remote.c a bit extended for our hardware target), some others
files to read the extensions and build a map of them, the arc-disassembler
totally changed to take these extensions into account.
> It hopefully just involves simple
> things like replacing your #define REGISTER_NAMES with #define
> REGISTER_NAME(i) (arc_register_name (i)).

As soon as I will find a roadmap, I'll do these changes.

Cheers,

Stephane.