From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23438 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2014 12:31:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23417 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jun 2014 12:31:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SEMBACKSCATTER,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com Received: from mail-bn1lp0141.outbound.protection.outlook.com (HELO na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (207.46.163.141) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:31:31 +0000 Received: from BL2FFO11FD009.protection.gbl (10.173.160.33) by BL2FFO11HUB036.protection.gbl (10.173.161.116) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.12; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:31:26 +0000 Received: from xsj-pvapsmtpgw01 (149.199.60.83) by BL2FFO11FD009.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.969.12 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:31:26 +0000 Received: from unknown-38-66.xilinx.com ([149.199.38.66] helo=xsj-smtp1) by xsj-pvapsmtpgw01 with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1WzPsl-00033T-C3; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 05:31:27 -0700 From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Michael Eager , Vinod Kathail , Vidhumouli Hunsigida , Nagaraju Mekala Subject: RE: [Patch, microblaze]: Fix for remote G Packet message too long error for baremetal. Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:31:00 -0000 References: <53A023B1.5000105@redhat.com> <859f27cb-8c46-46c1-9625-7287c60f3ae9@BY2FFO11FD007.protection.gbl> <53A1ABF0.9080004@redhat.com> <74281fd5-518a-4d7f-977a-6fa1320f6db9@BY2FFO11FD016.protection.gbl> <53A1B61F.9080803@redhat.com> <736c2e0d-6ff1-40c3-8120-dc6f5d91e6b1@BL2FFO11FD052.protection.gbl> <53A8290A.1050701@redhat.com> <53A94147.4050700@redhat.com> <57ebe4b0-83eb-4208-9778-472ecf0048d4@BY2FFO11FD038.protection.gbl> <53A96993.5040804@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53A96993.5040804@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RCIS-Action: ALLOW Message-ID: <109c35c1-e2f6-430f-9235-c6c82a93daf1@BL2FFO11FD009.protection.gbl> X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:149.199.60.83;CTRY:US;IPV:NLI;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(6009001)(438002)(189002)(199002)(377454003)(51704005)(479174003)(13464003)(76176999)(92566001)(92726001)(50986999)(46406003)(31966008)(95666004)(6806004)(54356999)(44976005)(31696002)(64706001)(70736001)(86362001)(19580405001)(80022001)(33646001)(19580395003)(74502001)(84676001)(83322001)(81342001)(68736004)(97756001)(50466002)(97736001)(93886003)(106466001)(85852003)(1496007)(74662001)(83072002)(20776003)(2656002)(104016002)(47776003)(87936001)(23726002)(21056001)(77096002)(99396002)(53416004)(106116001)(85306003)(81542001)(74316001)(79102001)(4396001)(76482001)(46102001)(77982001)(81946004)(23106004);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB036;H:xsj-pvapsmtpgw01;FPR:;MLV:sfv;PTR:ErrorRetry;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: xilinx.onmicrosoft.com X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: X-Forefront-PRVS: 02524402D6 Received-SPF: Pass (: domain of xilinx.com designates 149.199.60.83 as permitted sender) receiver=; client-ip=149.199.60.83; helo=xsj-pvapsmtpgw01; Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 149.199.60.83) smtp.mailfrom=ajit.kumar.agarwal@xilinx.com; X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00843.txt.bz2 -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:36 PM To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Michael Eager; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hu= nsigida; Nagaraju Mekala Subject: Re: [Patch, microblaze]: Fix for remote G Packet message too long = error for baremetal. On 06/24/2014 11:28 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote: >> + if (tdesc =3D=3D NULL) >> + tdesc =3D tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect; >=20 > Shouldn't the default be to _not_ assume stack protect ? >=20 > The default is choosen to assume stack protect to make compatible with th= e handling of stack protect registers in XMD Debugger. >> But you've already added the G packet size guess for that. In this case is it correct to say=20 If (tdesc =3D=3D NULL) tdesc =3D tdesc_microblaze;=20 instead of tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect? >> - >> + if (tdesc_data !=3D NULL) >> + { >> + tdesc_use_registers (gdbarch, tdesc, tdesc_data); >> + set_gdbarch_register_type (gdbarch, microblaze_register_type); >=20 >>> Hmm, why is this set_gdbarch_register_type call necessary? >=20 > /* Override tdesc_register_type to adjust the types of VFP > registers for NEON. */ > This is done for arm target to set the different type for VFP registers = for Neon with Boolean flags is set before this call for VFP registers. In t= he microblaze target it's not required for special case of stack protect as= the microblaze_register_type always return builtin_int for these stack pro= tect registers. >=20 >=20 Right. >>> As I mentioned before, please don't forget to document the new target f= eatures in the manual. >=20 > Would you mind in explaining which manual need to be changed for the new = target. >> The GDB manual, gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo, describes all the standard XML targ= et features. See the "Standard Target Features" node, and add a new subsec= tion for MicroBlaze. Thanks !! I will add subsection for Microblaze target. -- Pedro Alves