This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Remote Target Protocol 'g' & 'P' Packets Broken for PowerPC!!!!!
- To: sbjohnson at ozemail dot com dot au
- Subject: Re: Remote Target Protocol 'g' & 'P' Packets Broken for PowerPC!!!!!
- From: Nick Duffek <nsd at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:59:50 -0400
- CC: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <39F75A96.D57B7895@ozemail.com.au>
[I've trimmed cagney@redhat.com, jtc@redback.com, and kevinb@cygnus.com
from the CC line, since my messages are getting to gdb@sources.redhat.com.
It looks like yours still aren't, though.]
On 26-Oct-2000, Steven Johnson wrote:
>> A solution to _that_ would be to autogenerate GDB's and stubs' register
>> numbers from a common source.
>I don't really like this idea, because a stub may not necessarily be written in
>'C' and it may not be part of the 'GDB' build tree.
Okay, I agree.
>'a',archname,number of registers,regname,regname,...
I like that.
Register sizes are another quantity that a GDB developer might change, so
I think sizes should be included in the above.
>Further, as long as the regname never changed after it was
>defined (and there is no realistic reason I can think of why it should)
I can imagine register names being changed by some GDB developer who has
(a) sole responsibility for a target and (b) strong ideas about
user-visible names.
But the names in this context are really just opaque internal identifiers.
Each register could have an additional field for those identifiers, and it
could be numeric if we wanted to be stingy with space.
Nick