This is the mail archive of the gdb@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] |
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:34:00PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> The question for me is how to extend the protocol precisely. I guess we >> need some new qSupported feature. But should we then, if both sides >> agreed on it, switch to a completely new register set or rather exchange >> those additional registers separately, ie. via some new packet? > > No new feature required. Take a look at the description of > target-described registers in the current manual; we'd just need > a naming convention for the x86 control registers of interest to GDB. > That solves your other issue too about width. Ah, of course, once again forgot about this. So another convention would be that a target capable of up to 32 bit mode would report its registers as 32 bit and a 64 bit target as 64 bit - and they would transfer this width _independent_ of the current mode. That leads me to the questions: o Roughly, what code changes are required to exchange some i386.xml or x86-64.xml? o If gdb accepted such a static XML description from some x86 target, would it already stick with the register layout even when setting the arch manually (or later automatically)? Thanks, Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |