* 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).