Re: Cortex-M CPSR thumb bit fix

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:42:56AM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Hmm, that leads to the question: what if one says it's M and the other
> says it's something else? Personally I'd always go with what the actual
> binary being debugged says. Or at least that should override the XML
> definition. Although in that case the only benefit I can think of for the
> XML at all is connecting to a target when you don't have a binary to
> debug, which is rather a limited benefit.

It has to work the other direction, because the XML description
typically comes from the target stub / agent.  So we consider that the
definitive statement on target capabilities.

> > Jonathan, Kazu, anyone have a preference on producing a combined patch?
> 
> I haven't mucked around with the XML stuff before, so if you do want a
> combined patch, perhaps Kazu could look, particularly as there were also
> unresolved comments on his patch, and none of the XML side was posted.
> Hopefully with my patch fixed with your comments, then I'm reducing the
> effort to combine at least.

Thanks, I really appreciate it!  Either I'll talk Kazu into looking at
it, or find some time to do so myself.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery