public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Short g/G packets?
@ 2006-03-24  2:07 Daniel Jacobowitz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2006-03-24  2:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb

Hi Andrew,

I came across this comment in remote.c today:

+             /* A short packet that didn't include the register's
+                 value, this implies that the register is zero (and
+                 not that the register is unavailable).  Supply that
+                 zero value.  */

And these two supporting emails:

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2001-11/msg00164.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2003-12/msg00070.html

But that's all I can find - it's not in the manual, it's not used by any
stubs that I could get ahold of to check, et cetera.  Do you have a
reference for this interpretation?  Do you know any stubs taking advantage
of it?

I'm working on better handling for unavailable registers at the moment,
and automatic use of both g/G and p/P in the same session.  I'm planning
to assume that registers not reported in the g packet response are
not part of the g packet, and try querying for them with p packets
if the target supports those; this is more logical behavior.  This
fits just fine with the current documentation, but not with the
implementation.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2006-03-23 19:17 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-24  2:07 Short g/G packets? Daniel Jacobowitz

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).