From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19172 invoked by alias); 14 May 2003 17:40:36 -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 19078 invoked from network); 14 May 2003 17:40:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO planck.amplepower.com) (216.39.162.139) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 May 2003 17:40:34 -0000 Received: from [192.168.8.30] (helo=knuth.amplepower.com ident=roth) by planck.amplepower.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19G09X-0001bE-00; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:34:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:40:00 -0000 From: "Theodore A. Roth" X-X-Sender: roth@knuth.amplepower.com To: Andrew Cagney cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: breakpoint for avr? In-Reply-To: <3EC26895.4090407@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <3EC26895.4090407@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 On Wed, 14 May 2003, Andrew Cagney wrote: :) Theodore, :) :) Just noticed that the AVR target doesn't provide the BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC :) method. :) :) Up until now the architecture vector providing a default :) breakpoint_from_pc (it would internal error for the AVR case). I :) suspect, up until now, this hasn't been a problem because the AVR was :) always remote. :) :) Anyway, I've just posted a patch to always require breakpoint-from-pc :) and this is causing the AVR grief. Can you give me a reference to that patch so I can try it? :) :) So, is there a breakpoint instruction, or should GDB allow targets that :) have no breakpoint at all? There is a BREAK instruction for some avr devices (acts as a NOP for devices that don't have it). Since the avr is always remote, I use the 'Z' packets for setting breakpoints. I'm not sure how useful the BREAK insn would be for gdb though. I guess the remote monitor could intercept it some how. How does the BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC method relate to 'Z' packets from the remote protocol? Ted Roth