This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] gdbserver 1/n - PBUFSIZ
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+ at andrew dot cmu dot edu>
- Subject: Re: [rfa] gdbserver 1/n - PBUFSIZ
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:13:55 -0400
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <20010719113606.A18944@nevyn.them.org>
> The things I've been discussing w.r.t. qRegisters and such need to be done,
> but they also need to be done properly, and I certainly won't have time to
> do enough testing before 5.1. It's possible to make gdbserver work in
> roughly the right way, such that it will be friendly to the new work when
> that's ready, without all the intrusive changes. I'm going to try to do
> that in time for 5.1.
(Urgency can be a dangerous thing |8-)
I think a simple summary of your plan is that you would like to strip as
many layers of gdbserver as possible so that it supplies a raw _ptrace_
buffer to GDB as the G-packet.
Correct?
> Here's the first bit. PBUFSIZ is used as an array initializer, but defined
> in terms of REGISTER_BYTES - which might not be a constant, and which I'd
> rather hide anyway. Later on, the design I'm hashing out for gdbserver's
> register cache will make it very easy to find the maximum value of
> REGISTER_BYTES, and we can make PBUFSIZ flexible again; for now, I made it
> "big enough".
If I'm correct above, why not just ask your backend how big it thinks
that register buffer is (via a function call). For some targets it
looks like it is just (sizeof (inferior_registers) + sizeof
(inferior_fp_registers)) for others it is a little bit more tricky but
nothing more.
Andrew