From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36832)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1XjVDj-0001bC-4Y
	for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:31:41 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1XjVDc-00033X-Uh
	for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:31:35 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33860)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1XjVDc-00033Q-Lt
	for Qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:31:28 -0400
Message-ID: <54510848.3080004@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:31:20 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2753E2F1-FF07-467C-8DCC-569A5BCDA915@livius.net>	<CAFEAcA9FgL+BFAEZ32zkM_uQpt2o_qPxV=G7HGR0EMdQ9SzqAA@mail.gmail.com>	<8B682701-7ECB-4741-917F-ABDFB5F576B9@livius.net>	<CAFEAcA8MhYbSFpGcxVJyFmaV64BSJY7whJih5-Die9bxFV=dxw@mail.gmail.com>	<5200B6C9-6E30-4B71-9DEB-42BBCD873FC9@livius.net>	<CAFEAcA9+efzse41poCN1E5P_FyqAESfzU0u_=rdwseNbfC+VyA@mail.gmail.com>	<0ECC542D-7CF1-4D17-B689-46DF4CCE8F7D@livius.net>	<CAFEAcA9QXLz+qCrwF2ksr2vMPsBD+9WgascQgRs7e_MDg5fa_w@mail.gmail.com>	<DA86ED53-88D0-4C99-82C6-F0EE2C2A15D9@livius.net>	<CAFEAcA8aTaHwuor3L+uprev8N_SiM7Ofuj3w6mvCq4PMCx9bBg@mail.gmail.com>	<CD09C9F0-6539-443F-A108-C82882A57F4C@livius.net>
	<CAFEAcA-qskHhrBxRSXBHSBqqWon+qVhqXMJPY6T5z1brFAL5AA@mail.gmail.com>
	<545103A7.203@redhat.com>
	<90E1040E-DDA8-47BC-8F52-2CF803E6D4C8@livius.net>
In-Reply-To: <90E1040E-DDA8-47BC-8F52-2CF803E6D4C8@livius.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Better Cortex-M support?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Liviu Ionescu <ilg@livius.net>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, QEMU Developers <Qemu-devel@nongnu.org>



On 10/29/2014 04:18 PM, Liviu Ionescu wrote:
> 
> On 29 Oct 2014, at 17:11, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/28/2014 03:40 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I think writes via gdb will be treated in the same way as
>>> writes by the CPU (ie interpreted as attempts to program
>>> the flash device). QEMU doesn't support a "debug access"
>>> abstraction.
>>
>> I think they should work right.  See cpu_memory_rw_debug.
> 
> I'm not sure I can follow you. do you mean there is a recent patch that fixed this?
> 
> otherwise, according to my tests, when the GDB session is active, the semihosting output is no longer displayed in the qemu console.

That's due to usage of the breakpoint instruction, as Peter pointed out.

I mean that writes to ROM or flash via gdb should modify the ROM
directly, unlike writes by the CPU.

Paolo