mbox series

[0/2] target/arm: gdbstub system registers refinement

Message ID 20190307201244.8971-1-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Headers show
Series target/arm: gdbstub system registers refinement | expand

Message

Richard Henderson March 7, 2019, 8:12 p.m. UTC 
This was working toward fixing 

  https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4274

although I don't think I'm entirely successful.  I would argue,
however, that gdb's behaviour in this is odd.  Why are registers
that are clearly marked "system" being added to "general" simply
because they have integer type?

In the meantime, we don't really need to present these registers
to the user for CONFIG_USER_ONLY.


r~


Richard Henderson (2):
  target/arm: Put system registers in "system" group
  target/arm: Don't add system-registers.xml for user-only

 target/arm/gdbstub.c | 2 +-
 target/arm/helper.c  | 4 ++++
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.17.2

Comments

Peter Maydell March 8, 2019, 3:59 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:12, Richard Henderson
<richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
>

> This was working toward fixing

>

>   https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4274

>

> although I don't think I'm entirely successful.  I would argue,

> however, that gdb's behaviour in this is odd.  Why are registers

> that are clearly marked "system" being added to "general" simply

> because they have integer type?


Yeah, this does seem to me like it might be a bug on
gdb's end -- are you following up with them?

> In the meantime, we don't really need to present these registers

> to the user for CONFIG_USER_ONLY.


Reasonable enough, I guess, though a few sysregs are
visible to EL0.

thanks
-- PMM
Richard Henderson March 8, 2019, 4:11 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 3/8/19 7:59 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:12, Richard Henderson

> <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:

>>

>> This was working toward fixing

>>

>>   https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4274

>>

>> although I don't think I'm entirely successful.  I would argue,

>> however, that gdb's behaviour in this is odd.  Why are registers

>> that are clearly marked "system" being added to "general" simply

>> because they have integer type?

> 

> Yeah, this does seem to me like it might be a bug on

> gdb's end -- are you following up with them?


Yes.


r~