This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug 1001468] eCos GNU tools 4.6.2

Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:

--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Larmour <> 2012-03-15 21:42:45 GMT ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> (In reply to comment #32)
> > (In reply to comment #31)
> > > 
> > > I am quite busy this week but might find some time to build a new test release
> > > based on GCC 4.6.3. I'm not sure if we should apply Jifl's GDB patch for the
> > > 'g' packet reply issue or continue with the current "set tdesc" workaround
> > > until the merge of his patch with other changes has occurred and we can apply
> > > something which reflects the upstream changes. Comments?
> I'm not a GDB expert but it is likely that I'll have to implement the target
> part of support for VFP registers. I'll have a lot of questions then, but for
> the time being is this: would it be possible to also provide similar workaround
> (xml file) for VFP?

You won't need it. You shouldn't need a target description file when using VFP.
You just have to make sure you have made the necessary changes in the stub so
that when VFP is used, it sends the registers in the format GDB expects. i.e.:

Bear in mind, the purpose of various changes (including the most recent) I've
made to GDB and Cortex-M was trying to give GDB the smarts to identify what to
do based on the executable you are debugging. Indeed, if you are using VFP,
then GDB should infer that from the executable automatically. The user should
have to do nothing special.

> > There's still a bit of discussion (due to uncertainty on my part in fact), but
> > you can be pretty confident something similar to the following (post-merge)
> > patch will be applied:
> >
> > 
> > Or you can leave it out if you don't intend these tools to be the final tools.
> My answer is I don't know, but it is very likely that we'll have another
> iteration(s) with GDB, at least in order to adopt VFP registers.

I wouldn't have thought there would be a problem with GDB after my patch,
unless there is a problem with GDB's support for VFP on Cortex-M4 more
generally - not specific to eCos.

> > But IMO we shouldn't ship a GDB without something akin to this fix being
> > included.
> > 
> To sum up, I would suggest to restart testing with 4.6.3 asap. That may imply
> for the time being to go with GDB as-is (or with work-around) and gain some
> time for Jifl's patch + VFP support.

The version of the patch referenced from comment 32 is what I have now
committed to GDB. So that is now official.


Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]