Re: Remote protocol extension for register ranges

[jtc at redback dot com (J.T. Conklin)]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
Andrew> The idea to include the ``context'' (J.T.s word) in the request is
Andrew> interesting.  At present, switching ``contexts'' implicitly switches
Andrew> both the address space and the register file.  We'd need to figure out
Andrew> if all commands should take that.  J.T. Have you ever thought of a cpu
Andrew> as a context?  Considered the possibility of different contexts having
Andrew> different architectures?

The environment I was thinking of when I decided to use the word
"context" was a system with multiple processes, where each process had
one or more threads.  In the past, we've talked about extending GDB to
be able to debug such systems, and I wanted to ensure that a new debug
protocol would be able to handle it.  I never thought of a CPU as a
context, much less different context having different architectures.
But I can't think of a reason why we couldn't support that.

        --jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin
RedBack Networks