From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8744 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2014 15:54:15 -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 8734 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jun 2014 15:54:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:54:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5IFsA16022053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:54:10 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5IFs7xI010824; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:54:08 -0400 Message-ID: <53A1B61F.9080803@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:54:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal 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. 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> In-Reply-To: <74281fd5-518a-4d7f-977a-6fa1320f6db9@BY2FFO11FD016.protection.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00676.txt.bz2 On 06/18/2014 04:39 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote: > The info registers against such a stub( where the design does not > have stack-protect registers) shows the registers $rshr and $rslr but > it shows as . Is the display of $rshr and $rslr happening > because of this second guess with -2 case? Yes, because you're guessing a target description that includes the registers. Is it inappropriate to have the second guess with -2 case? It is, but you're guessing the wrong description... In addition to tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect, create _another_ description that does _not_ xi:include the stack protect feature, and register the guess with that: microblaze_register_g_packet_guesses (struct gdbarch *gdbarch) { register_remote_g_packet_guess (gdbarch, MICROBLAZE_NUM_REGS, tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect); register_remote_g_packet_guess (gdbarch, MICROBLAZE_NUM_REGS - 2, tdesc_microblaze); } I'd add a MICROBLAZE_NUM_CORE_REGS value to the registers enum. Then instead of that magic " - 2", you could write: { register_remote_g_packet_guess (gdbarch, MICROBLAZE_NUM_CORE_REGS, tdesc_microblaze); register_remote_g_packet_guess (gdbarch, MICROBLAZE_NUM_REGS, tdesc_microblaze_with_stack_protect); -- Pedro Alves