This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
harvard architectures - the d10v
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: harvard architectures - the d10v
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:05:59 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: David Taylor <taylor at cygnus dot com>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>, Nick Duffek <nsd at cygnus dot com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>, Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>, GDB Discussion <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- References: <3A82F7E9.D4641BD1@cygnus.com>
Andrew Cagney writes:
> So a meta question, how should GDB behave when it comes to a harvard
> architecture?
Is "Harvard Architecture" really the best name for this?
Seems to me it includes only a small subset of the total set of
architectures that have multiple address spaces for different uses.
> I've this feeling that at present we've lots of people all trying to get
> GDB to work on harvard architectures and each, in a vacuum, is
> determining how it should behave. The unfortunately consequence is that
> when the discussion is finally dragged, kicking and screaming, out onto
> a public forum, no one agrees. People refuse to discuss details because
> their harvard architecture is all hush, hush. By the time the issues
> are raised, it is all too late and the real problems are simply not
> fixed.
At best, this is a wee bit presumptious.
[but never let that stop a good argument :-)]
> The ironic part to all this is that, long ago, GDB was targeted at the
> d10v (it is the extreme games version of a harvard architectures). At
> the time it was decided that the d10v hacks should to be accepted into
> gdb because that way there was at least a working implementation out
> there in a public forum. The tool you all need to facilitate public
> discussion are available yet everyone refuses to use it!
Define "everyone".
Define "refuses".
> ``But the d10v is a hack''? So? The point of the d10v, wasn't to
> provide a reference implementation (anything but!) but rather to provide
> a vehicle through which a reference implementation could be developed.
I don't know that the d10v was all the good a reference implementation
or that one is even needed for the task at hand.
> So, who out of all of you would like to steer this to resolution? The
> first thing I think needs to be done is for people to agree to the
> correct interaction and document it. That way if people ever want to
> re-open the debate about what the behaviour should be they can simply
> turn to the gdb.texinfo documentation.
I'm not in a position to steer anything gdb-wise.
But I do have an interest in seeing this resolved.