From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23481 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2010 16:42:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 23463 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2010 16:41:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:41:55 +0000 Received: (qmail 29741 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2010 16:41:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Jun 2010 16:41:52 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Earnshaw Cc: Kazu Hirata , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices. Message-ID: <20100624164149.GD8410@caradoc.them.org> References: <20100609140312.291855664EF@henry1.codesourcery.com> <4C101E0B.4040006@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C101E0B.4040006@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00534.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:04:43AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > It looks to me as though this code should also mostly apply to ARMv6M > as well (coretex-m0/1). However, the choice of name > 'org.gnu.gdb.arm.core-v7m' seems to suggest otherwise. Is there > really a difference between the support needed for these cores? Or > would a more suitable name be appropriate? Historical note: it's this way because the patch predated v6m. We need to support the v7m name internally for compatibility, but we can rename the official version if you like. I can imagine GDB wanting to know about BASEPRI / FAULTMASK. But we provide the privileged registers in another "feature" today, and use this core-v7m feature with both v6-m and v7-m. So 'org.gnu.gdb.amr.core-m' instead? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery