From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15617 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2003 04:11:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15610 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2003 04:11:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 2003 04:11:55 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F09B2B7F; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F2F2E85.8070805@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 04:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cgd@broadcom.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Next for GDB References: <3F2AFBD5.3040708@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 > Is today Scary Andrew Mail Day? 8-) > > At Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:47:12 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote: > >> [ ... ] My curent TODO list for gdb includes >> >> [ ... ] >> - the sim vector > > > What's on your to-do list there? `all of the below'? See the sim category in the bug database. > If there's going to be much work on the interface to the simulator, > one thing that *should* be implemented IMO is some mechanism to allow > multiple processors in a simulator to be exposed to GDB, probably > using some thread-related mechanism. yep. both GDB's target vector, and the simulator vector need an upgrade. > I've not looked into GDB's thread bits for about a year and a half, i > don't recall if it splits the notion of 'user thread' vs. 'kernel > context' (i.e., M and N in MxN threading systems) or tries to make any > such distinction. Multiple cores would kind-of correspond to multiple > kernel contexts... yep. gdb currently isn't well structured enough to do this. It's also related to getting GDB to handle backtraces through interpreters. It could be done with further target layers, or perhaphs frame layers... For the moment, I'm just worred about making the architecture code non-global. > i've got a year and a half old diff that starts adapting some old > version of GDB (5.2?) to support multiple cores/threads under > simulation, if somebody wants it. > > > (in order to support debugging multiple cores in our gdb+simulator -- > again a plug for http://sibyte.broadcom.com/public/resources/#tools -- > we currently use a fairly nasty but functional hack. I started to try > to fix that, but then that business trip ended and lack of > productivity resumed.) Also `making a dead cat bounce'. Layering a simulator over the top of another target so the simulator uses the target for registers and memory. Would make possible: - less intrusive inferior function calls (don't write the results back) - executing code on dead targets - simulated single stepping this would involve a lot more work so ... Andrew