From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LE8ys-00047x-T4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:03:27 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LE8yp-00046z-Hv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:03:26 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57565 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LE8yp-00046o-3E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:03:23 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:50746) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LE8yo-0001lx-JD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:03:22 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LE8yn-0002nn-ID for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:03:21 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: gdbstub: packet reply is too long Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:03:18 +0000 References: <1229776952.22890.2.camel@ws-aschultz> <200812202035.33830.paul@codesourcery.com> <494D5CEF.2040203@web.de> In-Reply-To: <494D5CEF.2040203@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812202103.19216.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Andreas Schultz , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 20 December 2008, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: > >>> I'm trying to debug a 32bit (i386) kernel on a 64bit host under kvm, > >>> but gdb always refuses it with: > >> > >> QEMU and also KVM's x86_64 version are currently broken /wrt debugging > >> targets < 64 bits. I've posted a fix a while ago, but there were > >> concerns that gdb should better be enhanced (which is basically true, > >> but unrealistic to achieve in the near future). > > > > I still maintain that making the g packet format depend on the current > > CPU more is absolutely the wrong way to fix this. > > From a higher perspective, it is surely not the cleanest approach. But > it still appears to be the only one which helps us working around this > gdb shortcoming. Actually it isn't. You could add an explicit switch. Paul