Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] gdb: provide the name of the architecture in the target.xml

[David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

> On 30 September 2014 16:23, Jens Freimann <jfrei@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > From: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > This patch provides the name of the architecture in the target.xml if available.
> >
> > This allows the remote gdb to detect the target architecture on its own - so
> > there is no need to specify it manually (e.g. if gdb is started without a
> > binary) using "set arch *arch_name*".
> >
> > The name of the architecture has been added to all archs that provide a
> > target.xml (by supplying a gdb_core_xml_file) and have a unique architecture
> > name in gdb's feature xml files.
> 
> gdb seems to support more than one powerpc architecture
> name. Do we need to report "powerpc:e500" for
> our e500 cpu models, for instance?
> 
> -- PMM
> 

Hi Peter,

good point. I was hoping for more feedback from the powerpc folks.

My gdb multi-arch seems to support the following architectures:

(gdb) set arch
Requires an argument. Valid arguments are i386, i386:x86-64, i386:x64-32, i8086, i386:intel, i386:x86-64:intel, i386:x64-32:intel, i386:nacl, i386:x86-64:nacl, i386:x64-32:nacl, s390:64-bit, rs6000:6000, rs6000:rs1, rs6000:rsc, rs6000:rs2, powerpc:common64, powerpc:common, powerpc:603, powerpc:EC603e, powerpc:604, powerpc:403, powerpc:601, powerpc:620, powerpc:630, powerpc:a35, powerpc:rs64ii, powerpc:rs64iii, powerpc:7400, powerpc:e500, powerpc:e500mc, powerpc:e500mc64, powerpc:MPC8XX, powerpc:750, powerpc:titan, powerpc:vle, powerpc:e5500, powerpc:e6500, arm, armv2, armv2a, armv3, armv3m, armv4, armv4t, armv5, armv5t, armv5te, xscale, ep9312, iwmmxt, iwmmxt2, aarch64, aarch64:ilp32, auto.

However I am not sure if there are duplicates / compatible ones among them. The
available registers are all defined in the XML supplied by the gdbserver - so
I am not sure if they are "part" of the more specific architecture names.

Maybe it makes sense to leave powerpc and arm out of this patch. So I would
just set s390:64-bit in the first shot (unless there are any experts saying
that e.g. powerpc:common always works). At least for s390:64-bit I am very
sure :)

Of course, the mechanism to set the name should be flexible enough (if we find
the existing one to be too strict).

Thanks!

David