RE: [cdt-dev] CDT debugging with 16-bit addressable memories

[John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ah, well, yes. If the ability to get the addressable size is a custom
behavior of your gdb/mi-based debugger engine, then the handling of it
will need to be a customization in your version of the gdb/mi backend. It
seems to me you should petition the gdb folks for an enhancement so we
can standardize on the handling.

Specifying a default addressable size in the launch configuration
seems like a good enhancement. Some embedded targets have memory with
varying addressable sizes, so the setting won't be very helpful in those
situations.

John

At 07:29 AM 11/6/2009, Edwin Steiner wrote:
> Hallo John!
>
> Thanks for your fast reply.
>
> Actually we are not using gdb but a custom debugger which implements
> the
> gdb/mi interface. We added the addressable unit size as an extra field
> that
> gdb does not report, i.e. the response by our debugger would look like
> this
> (line breaks for readability):
>
>    
> ^done,addr="3000",bits-per-addressable-unit="16",memory=[
>    
> {address="0xbb8",data="">
>    
> {address="0xbbc",data="">
>    
> {address="0xbc0",data="">
>    
> next-page="3012",next-row="3004",nr-bytes="12",total-bytes="12"
>
> (With 'bits-per-addressable-unit="16",' being the non-standard
> part.)
>
> While the gdb/mi spec explicitly allows the producer to add fields, I
> guess
> the CDT code base would require a more general approach. Or would such
> an
> addition be acceptable?
>
> I could also look into possibilities of specifying the addressable unit
> size
> in the launch configuration.
>
> Which would be the preferable way to get the size info all the way down
> to
> (or up to) the MemoryBlock?
>
> best regards
>
> Edwin
>
> This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only for use by the
> addressee(s) unless otherwise indicated.
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev