Re: G packet format ...

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:57:31AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>NB: Why do this?
> >>
> >>The objective is to decouple the remote protocol's G packet from the 
> >>rest of GDB.  That way, GDB has greater flexability in how it implements 
> >>its regcache.  For instance, with the MIPS, it will be possible to have 
> >>a single internal register layout while still being able to connect to 
> >>all the remote MIPS targets.
> >
> >
> >I guess I posted my gdbserver register cache patch before I converted
> >it to generate them from a shell script.  Here's what I've been using. 
> >I didn't consider the issue of only-transferable-in-P-packet registers
> >(and I still don't see a good reason... well, maybe I can come up with
> >one, actually.  Things that react when read.).
> 
> [x86 example deleted]
> 
> Doesn't the x86 have the potential for 4 billion MSRs? :-)

I wouldn't know :)  It's my least-familiar platform; I only picked it
because the register data was short :P

I'm a little skeptical of using the P packet for registers
not-present-in-all-cases, either.  Perhaps in the morning I'll be able
to figure out why.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer