Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidiana...@linaro.org> writes: > On Mon, 19 May 2025 15:55, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >>Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidiana...@linaro.org> writes: >> >>> Update aarch64-core.xml to include field definitions for PSTATE, which >>> in gdb is modelled in the cpsr (current program status register) >>> pseudo-register, named after the actual cpsr register in armv7. >>> >>> Defining the fields layout of the register allows easy inspection of for >>> example, the current exception level (EL): >>> >>> For example. Before booting a Linux guest, EL=2, but after booting and >>> Ctrl-C'ing in gdb, we get EL=0: >>> >>> (gdb) info registers $cpsr >>> cpsr 0x20402009 [ SP EL=2 BTYPE=0 PAN C ] >>> (gdb) cont >>> Continuing. >>> ^C >>> Thread 2 received signal SIGINT, Interrupt. >>> 0x0000ffffaaff286c in ?? () >>> (gdb) info registers $cpsr >>> cpsr 0x20001000 [ EL=0 BTYPE=0 SSBS C ] >>> >>> The aarch64-core.xml has been updated to match exactly the version >>> retrieved from upstream gdb, retrieved in 2025-05-19 from HEAD commit >>> 9f4dc0b137c86f6ff2098cb1ab69442c69d6023d. >>> >>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=tree;h=9f4dc0b137c86f6ff2098cb1ab69442c69d6023d >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidiana...@linaro.org> >> >>Queued to gdbstub/next, thanks. >> > > Would patches for the field system registers (NZCV, CurrentEL, DAIF, > SPSel) be acceptable? > > If yes, I think defining them in the static core xml is cleaner than > generating them dynamically in "system-registers.xml" like we do with > arm_gen_dynamic_sysreg_feature() but both can work. The drawback would > be that we wouldn't match upstream gdb's core xml schema anymore. (Maybe > we can add a new xml include "pstate.xml" instead)
You could submit to the gdb core schema first (surely they would also benefit from the patch?). -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
