This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the GDB project. See the GDB home page for more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Andrew Cagney writes: > "J.T. Conklin" wrote: > > > Here is the protocol elements that I'm currently working with: > > > > Insert Breakpoint: B<type>,<address>[,<length>] > > returns: ?? - A cookie representing the breakpoint > > EX - breakpoint type not supported > > - no breakpoint contexts available > > - invalid/unsupported address > > - invalid/unsupported length > > FYI, there is already a semi-official use of `B' as a generic remote > breakpoint operation. The syntax is: > > B<address>,S Set a breakpoint > B<address>,C Clear a breakpoint Where is this used? I see no evidence of this in devo's remote.c. Is it hiding out on a branch somewhere? FYI, the syntax is bogus. It should use B and b like the rest of the commands. Also, the protocol should support the ability to set a breakpoint or watchpoint on a range of addresses. The command format used by JT was developed by me many years ago, and should have been used instead of this `semi-official' method which was apparantly done without consultation of someone who understands how to develop this protocol. > With regard to the general question of extending the remote-gdb protocol > so that it supports a generic hardware breakpoint mechanism. I agree it > is needed. It is a missing part of the overall toolkit. I have discussed this with GDB folk in the past. If you want to hear what needs to be done, ping me. > Did you know > that some targets actually implement hardware breakpoints by poking the > registers directly? Yes, and this is a complete sin. Stu