On 16 December 2015 at 00:16, Christopher Friedt wrote:
> Just to update everyone, there is a thread on gdb-patches here [1]
> that is awaiting consensus before a patch is submitted that we may
> pull into qemu.
>
> [1] https://goo.gl/FyUvQu
Thanks for following up with the GDB developers.
-- PM
Just to update everyone, there is a thread on gdb-patches here [1]
that is awaiting consensus before a patch is submitted that we may
pull into qemu.
[1] https://goo.gl/FyUvQu
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> IIRC last time I played with this when adding aarch64 system registers
> for debugging is the number is irrelevant to gdb, its all dependant on
> what the stub sends. As long as the coprocessor get/set functions agree
> on the order with the x
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 14 December 2015 at 14:22, Christopher Friedt
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Christopher Friedt
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
Note that our XML files are from gdb itself, so you should start
by chec
On 14 December 2015 at 14:22, Christopher Friedt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Christopher Friedt
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> Note that our XML files are from gdb itself, so you should start
>>> by checking whether gdb has a suitable Cort
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Christopher Friedt
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> Note that our XML files are from gdb itself, so you should start
>> by checking whether gdb has a suitable Cortex-M xml file.
>
> They do indeed. Thanks for the tip.
binutils-
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Note that our XML files are from gdb itself, so you should start
> by checking whether gdb has a suitable Cortex-M xml file.
They do indeed. Thanks for the tip.
On 14 December 2015 at 13:07, Christopher Friedt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> This patch seems to be creating a completely new method of
>> constructing the XML to send to gdb. Is it really not possible
>> to do this using the existing mechanisms we have fo
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> This patch seems to be creating a completely new method of
> constructing the XML to send to gdb. Is it really not possible
> to do this using the existing mechanisms we have for selecting
> XML to send to gdb and handling the registers it im
On 14 December 2015 at 06:36, Christopher Friedt wrote:
> * allow overriding the default xml descriptor with gdb_xml_descriptor()
> * read cortex-m registers using arm_cortexm_gdb_read_register()
> * write cortex-m registers using arm_cortexm_gdb_write_register()
> * correct the number of cortex-m
* allow overriding the default xml descriptor with gdb_xml_descriptor()
* read cortex-m registers using arm_cortexm_gdb_read_register()
* write cortex-m registers using arm_cortexm_gdb_write_register()
* correct the number of cortex-m core regs to 23
Signed-off-by: Christopher Friedt
---
gdbstub
At least for Cortex-M3 devices (but also M0, M0+, M4, ...), while
JTAG debugging using OpenOCD's built-in GDB server, the general purpose
register layout (i.e. `info reg' in GDB) should contain slightly more than
the usual ARM core registers.
The non-addressable core registers that appear in O
12 matches
Mail list logo
