> On 30 September 2014 16:23, Jens Freimann <jf...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > From: David Hildenbrand <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > This patch provides the name of the architecture in the target.xml if > > available. > > > > This allows the remote gdb to detect the target architecture on its own - so > > there is no need to specify it manually (e.g. if gdb is started without a > > binary) using "set arch *arch_name*". > > > > The name of the architecture has been added to all archs that provide a > > target.xml (by supplying a gdb_core_xml_file) and have a unique architecture > > name in gdb's feature xml files. > > gdb seems to support more than one powerpc architecture > name. Do we need to report "powerpc:e500" for > our e500 cpu models, for instance? > > -- PMM >
Hi Peter, good point. I was hoping for more feedback from the powerpc folks. My gdb multi-arch seems to support the following architectures: (gdb) set arch Requires an argument. Valid arguments are i386, i386:x86-64, i386:x64-32, i8086, i386:intel, i386:x86-64:intel, i386:x64-32:intel, i386:nacl, i386:x86-64:nacl, i386:x64-32:nacl, s390:64-bit, rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common64, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:e500, powerpc:e500mc, powerpc:e500mc64, powerpc:MPC8XX, powerpc:750, powerpc:titan, powerpc:vle, powerpc:e5500, powerpc:e6500, arm, armv2, armv2a, armv3, armv3m, armv4, armv4t, armv5, armv5t, armv5te, xscale, ep9312, iwmmxt, iwmmxt2, aarch64, aarch64:ilp32, auto. However I am not sure if there are duplicates / compatible ones among them. The available registers are all defined in the XML supplied by the gdbserver - so I am not sure if they are "part" of the more specific architecture names. Maybe it makes sense to leave powerpc and arm out of this patch. So I would just set s390:64-bit in the first shot (unless there are any experts saying that e.g. powerpc:common always works). At least for s390:64-bit I am very sure :) Of course, the mechanism to set the name should be flexible enough (if we find the existing one to be too strict). Thanks! David
