From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LHnIu-0001Mv-S1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:43:12 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LHnIt-0001M7-5m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:43:12 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51182 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LHnIt-0001M1-2S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:43:11 -0500 Received: from nan.false.org ([208.75.86.248]:58210) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LHnIs-0006ic-O4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:43:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:43:02 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: gdbstub: packet reply is too long Message-ID: <20081230224302.GA30049@caradoc.them.org> References: <1229776952.22890.2.camel@ws-aschultz> <200812202208.34044.paul@codesourcery.com> <494D72E1.6020104@web.de> <200812202246.39036.paul@codesourcery.com> <494D8344.8010203@web.de> <20081226233012.GA9221@caradoc.them.org> <4958E5A7.4000303@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4958E5A7.4000303@web.de> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Andreas Schultz , Paul Brook , kvm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:58:47PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Well, in the current gdb design, current_gdbarch is consulted when > disassembling the code while target_gdbarch defines the register set > that is exchanged with the remote stub. This is a transitional state. Really, there isn't supposed to be a 'current' gdbarch; we're already moving away from it. Thinking about it some more you may be right about the overall solution though, sorry. The target_gdbarch idea is likely to stick around for a while. But some work will have to be done if current and target architectures have different register sets :-( > I'm pretty sure that the final solution will involve extended x86 > register sets in order to inform the frontend about the full target CPU > state so that it can set the right current_gdbarch automatically. Isn't everything we need for this in eflags already? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery