On 4/2/19 9:02 pm, Jiri Gaisler wrote:
>
> On 2/4/19 10:23 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 04/02/2019 10:16, Jiri Gaisler wrote:
>>> On 2/4/19 9:02 AM, Jiri Gaisler wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/19 8:00 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/19 8:38 pm, Jiri Gaisler wrote:
>>>>>> From 72799748f8dca595f804dcf0efd566b3a88eb36e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>> From: Jiri Gaisler<j...@gaisler.se>
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 10:04:00 +0100
>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] gdb: upgrade sis to 2.11
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * support RISC-V extension IMACFD
>>>>>> * fix broken erc32 memory controller settings
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> Why in this config ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> .../rtems-gdb-ce73f310150418a9a1625ab60a527d959096a9e2.cfg | 4 ++--
>>>>> ... is gdb-7-1 build recipe being included ..
>>>>>
>>>>>> %include %{_configdir}/gdb-7-1.cfg
>>>>> ? Should this be:
>>>>>
>>>>> %include %{_configdir}/gdb-8-1.cfg
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you OK if I add this patch to:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3460
>>>>>
>>>>> as an attachment so I can create `rtems-gdb-8.2.1-1.cfg`? I ask because
>>>>> `bfin`
>>>>> is broken with gdb-8.0.1 (in the sim code) on FreeBSD 12.0-p2 ..
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2019-February/001775.html
>>>>>
>>>>> A gdb-8.2.1 with this patch builds for the bfin plus all the other
>>>>> architectures
>>>>> in 5/rtems-all.:)
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, I have not run any simulations with this patch yet.
>>>> Switch to gdb-8.2.1 is fine with me, I am using gdb-head for my own
>>>> development. I will check the sis patch again, I did not think it would
>>>> apply to gdb-8.2.1 due to some conflicting changes to configure.tgt ...
>>> A problem with gdb-8.2.1 is that it does not recognize riscv-rtems as valid
>>> target, only riscv32- or riscv64- . This has been fixed in later versions
>>> of gdb. sis for RISC-V will therefore not build with the present patch. I
>>> will update the patch for 8.2.1 and post it on the list ...
>>
>> We could also switch to a GDB head version. From my experience it is a very
>> stable project.
>
> I would prefer a fixed gdb version, rather than tracking gdb-head. At least
> until I manage to merge my patches into the mainline. To make my patches less
> 'invasive', I'm contemplating to move them to a separate gdb target, e.g.
> 'target sis'. Then I will not interfere with gdb's internal simulator and I
> can add things like hardware watchpoints which is not on the interface to
> gdb's internal sims. I will see how realistic this is ...
Would adding a remote server be something you would consider? This means you can
be separate from GDB.
Chris
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
