This is the mail archive of the ecos-bugs@sourceware.org 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 1001614] eCos GDB stub "detach" reply incompatible with GDB7.4.1


Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001614

Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |NEEDINFO

--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> 2012-06-25 15:46:23 BST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> 
> > The patch isn't right. GDB is correct - the remote side doesn't know how to
> > detach, hence the "null" packet rather than OK.
> > 
> > In all versions of GDB to date, GDB will stop talking to the target (closing
> > tcp socket if needed) anyway. I assume that is still the case in 7.4.1?
> 
> It is not still the case.

That's annoying. It was the case in 7.3.1.

> > Presumably you don't
> > actually need the correct behaviour since this patch would continue to make it
> > identical to 'kill', as all this patch does is silence the message.
> 
> The rationale for the patch is just to allow us to work with eCos stubs and GDB
> 4.7.1 without the confusing messages and prompts shown above. Can you suggest a
> better approach?

Yes, although looking closer I see I would need to contribute a couple of
eCosCentric patches first to get the most coherent and sensible fix. That can
be done, however, I'm still not clear as to why you even want to use detach
given that the behaviour you are getting at present (pre 7.4, or post 7.4 with
your patch) is not that of detach, but the same as kill. Why not just use kill?

> I note that some JTAG debuggers allow the interpretation of the GDB detach
> command to be configured (resume execution, reset, halt, nothing) but they
> always reply "OK".

By "some" I assume you mean OpenOCD. The semantics of 'detach' are well
defined. OpenOCD does at least default to the correct behaviour, so at least
anything else is known hacky behaviour which the user is aware of. Although
none of those options for OpenOCD correspond to our current behaviour of 'kill'
either.

FAOD the reason we haven't replied OK before is because we have not, to date,
implemented detach. I would feel happier taking the time to add this support,
and increasing stub size a tiny amount, if I knew it was for a valuable and
useful reason rather than potentially just a misunderstanding of the purpose of
detach versus kill.

Jifl

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.


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