From: Tomas Frydrych <tf+lists.ecos@r-finger.com>
To: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org
Subject: Re: eCos GNU tools 4.6.2-20120125 ready for testing
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F54B801.9060104@r-finger.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F549276.7050600@siva.com.mk>
On 05/03/12 10:16, Ilija Kocho wrote:
> On 05.03.2012 10:49, John Dallaway wrote:
>> Hi Tomas
>>
>> Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/03/12 08:30, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/12 19:37, John Dallaway wrote:
>>>>> However, this success was achieved using arm-eabi-gdb 6.8.50.20080706.
>>>>> There does appear to be an issue with the length of the 'g' packet when
>>>>> using the new arm-eabi-gdb 7.3.1:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (gdb) tar rem /dev/ttyS0
>>>>>> Remote debugging using /dev/ttyS0
>>>>>> Remote 'g' packet reply is too long: e14e000810000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000fccf0d6800000000e8cf0d6895680008e24e00080000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000021
>>>>>> (gdb)
>>>>> We will need to look into why the packet length has apparently changed
>>>>> for Cortex-M targets. I can connect to an ARM7 target using the new GDB
>>>>> without problem.
>>>> This is a mismatch between the number of registers a gdb server reports
>>>> and the number that gdb expects for the given architecture. In this case
>>>> too many registers are being reported. IIRC, there should be 8 hex
>>>> digits for a register, so the above string seems to represent 42
>>>> registers instead of the 21 that Cortex-M has. Looks like a bug in the
>>>> monitor stub code, or perhaps a work around for something broken in
>>>> older toolchains?
>>> Done bit further digging around the sources,
>>> hal/cortexm/arch/.../cortexm_stub.h:64 defines 16 gpr, 8 fp or 12 bytes
>>> each and 2 ps registers; this adds up to the 336 bytes of the above output.
>> Yes. It looks like the FPA registers have been dropped from the default
>> register set for Cortex-M targets in recent GDB. In the longer term, we
>> should add a CDL option to our GDB stub code to accommodate this change.
>> In the short term, I will look at creating a GDB target description file
>> that we can use to accommodate the larger register set returned by our
>> stubs.
>
> Could the reason for this be because Cortex-M(4) uses VFP architecture
> rather than FPA?
> The FPU used on Cortex-M4 is FPv4-SP-d16
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0439c/BEHFGGGE.html
I think the original inclusion of the FP registers is to accommodate
earlier version of GDB that expected any arm platform to have FP
registers even though few really did -- I think it will be necessary for
the gdb stubs to have a CDL option to choose which gdb incarnation to
target, I don't think there is any way to do the right thing automatically.
I do not know if gdb 7.3 expects any sort of fp registers on M4, if so
it might be necessary for the definitions in cortexm_stubs.h to be more
finely honed based on the cortex-m variant.
Tomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-05 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-13 17:01 Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6 Ilija Kocho
2012-01-13 18:54 ` Bernard Fouché
2012-01-13 19:39 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-13 19:09 ` Frank Pagliughi
2012-01-13 19:45 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-14 10:22 ` John Dallaway
2012-01-14 16:02 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-01-15 17:36 ` Grant Edwards
2012-01-15 18:42 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-01-15 21:39 ` Stanislav Meduna
2012-01-23 1:01 ` Jonathan Larmour
2012-01-15 22:21 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-15 22:21 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-23 1:07 ` Jonathan Larmour
2012-01-16 15:20 ` Grant Edwards
2012-01-16 20:43 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-01-16 21:11 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-01-17 9:58 ` Bernard Fouché
2012-01-17 10:38 ` Paul Beskeen
2012-01-17 12:28 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-01-23 0:59 ` Jonathan Larmour
2012-01-14 16:25 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-23 1:13 ` Jonathan Larmour
2012-01-23 18:40 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-23 19:29 ` Jonathan Larmour
2012-01-25 12:30 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-01-25 20:59 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-26 13:36 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-01-26 20:18 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-02-13 22:02 ` eCos GNU tools 4.6.2-20120125 ready for testing [Was Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6] Ilija Kocho
2012-02-20 16:00 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-02-20 20:45 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-03-02 16:36 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-03 13:32 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-03-04 0:10 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-04 17:49 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-03-04 23:08 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-04 19:37 ` eCos GNU tools 4.6.2-20120125 ready for testing John Dallaway
2012-03-04 23:47 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-05 8:00 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-03-07 13:51 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-03-07 11:58 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-07 13:01 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-03-07 13:39 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-03-07 13:13 ` John Dallaway
2012-03-12 16:43 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-16 15:05 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-08 17:28 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-09 9:39 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-03-09 17:15 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-10 17:16 ` John Dallaway
2012-03-12 16:12 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-13 13:31 ` Alex Schuilenburg
2012-03-13 14:16 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-03-13 17:47 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-03-15 8:50 ` John Dallaway
2012-03-17 14:50 ` Sergei Gavrikov
2012-03-17 20:58 ` John Dallaway
2012-03-17 16:44 ` Stanislav Meduna
2012-03-18 19:10 ` eCos GNU tools 4.6.3-20120315 [Was Re: eCos GNU tools 4.6.2-20120125 ready for testing] Ilija Kocho
2012-04-04 12:57 ` Lambrecht Jürgen
2012-04-04 13:18 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-05-31 8:42 ` eCos GNU tools 4.6.3-20120315 and link time optimization Bernard Fouché
2012-03-05 8:30 ` eCos GNU tools 4.6.2-20120125 ready for testing Tomas Frydrych
2012-03-05 8:56 ` Tomas Frydrych
2012-03-05 9:50 ` John Dallaway
2012-03-05 9:55 ` Anders Montonen
2012-03-05 14:20 ` John Dallaway
2012-03-05 10:16 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-03-05 12:56 ` Tomas Frydrych [this message]
2012-03-03 12:58 ` eCos GNU tools 4.6.2-20120125 ready for testing [Was Re: Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6] Sergei Gavrikov
2012-01-17 9:37 ` Gnutools: consideration for upgrade to GCC 4.6 Tomas Frydrych
2012-01-17 16:10 ` Stanislav Meduna
2012-01-17 16:25 ` Tomas Frydrych
2012-01-17 16:45 ` Ilija Kocho
2012-01-20 14:42 ` Frank Pagliughi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F54B801.9060104@r-finger.com \
--to=tf+lists.ecos@r-finger.com \
--cc=ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).