This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Basic structure to describe register formats
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:20:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Basic structure to describe register formats
- References: <20020201152209.A17528@nevyn.them.org> <3C5B0438.6010005@cygnus.com>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Almost approved, I've been pokeing at random targets that once worked
> and they have now all been broken by multi-arch.
>
> >@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> >+name:arm
> >+resume:r11,sp,pc
> >+4:r0
> >+4:r1
> >+4:r2
>
>
> My only quarm is with this. It extends the G packet definition a little
> - lines with a leading letter get ignored just like comments and blanks.
> Correct?
Do we even have such a definition? I didn't think we did yet.
If so, then yes, I think that's a good extension. Also I would commit
it with the number in bits rather than bytes.
> Any way I think EXPEDITE to better word for describing what is to be
> done with those registers. SID uses that word to describe this exact
> same list.
That's a good word for what's going on here, I quite like it. OK with
that change?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer