I've been pondering adding a new target that would use a
gdbserver as a backend.
Here it would be possible to use e.g. OpenOCD's
thread support against commercial GDB servers that
add support for targets that OpenOCD does not (yet)
support.
This would of course open up for commercial JTAG
usbprog.c is clearly broken, I don't think this warning should be fixed as
that would be shuffling a bug under the carpet.
I've pushed most of the other fixes, but you'll need to run through two
versions of GCC or try -O3 to get the residual warnings I think.
Try:
CFLAGS=-O3 -g ./configure
Ref. your todo: shouldn't that be sorted out before we merge it?
How does this affect the arm target?
--
Øyvind Harboe
Can Zylin Consulting help on your project?
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 87 40 27
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG
For next time, please change the first line of the comment in the patch
to:
dsp560xxx: fix stuff...
Merged both patches.
Thanks!
--
Øyvind Harboe
Can Zylin Consulting help on your project?
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 87 40 27
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7
On 2011-06-04 09:48, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
usbprog.c is clearly broken, I don't think this warning should be fixed as
that would be shuffling a bug under the carpet.
Maybe, but it compiles this way (; To me it seems that there was some
old way of making things, then new way come and somebody
Hello Oyvind! :-)
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
I've been pondering adding a new target that would use a
gdbserver as a backend.
Here it would be possible to use e.g. OpenOCD's
thread support against commercial GDB servers that
add support for
Hi Freddie,
I just wanted to merge those changes that were ready to go
in as that was all I have time for this morning.
Some of your changes broke compiling on gcc 4.4.3(generated
more warnings), so I didn't want to put them in there yet. I think
gcc 4.4.3 discovered more unused code once you
I definitely want to see a gdb server target. I don't think
a gdb server openocd interface makes any sense.
--
Øyvind Harboe
Can Zylin Consulting help on your project?
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 87 40 27
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
On 2011-06-04 10:30, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I just wanted to merge those changes that were ready to go
in as that was all I have time for this morning.
Some of your changes broke compiling on gcc 4.4.3(generated
more warnings), so I didn't want to put them in there yet. I think
gcc 4.4.3
Ok, I'll wait then. Maybe I'll investigate on my own - just 4 files so maybe
I'll find something.
To create the residual commit:
git fetch origin
git rebase origin/master
= your commits will now contain only the residual changes.
--
Øyvind Harboe
Can Zylin Consulting help on your project?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
I definitely want to see a gdb server target. I don't think
a gdb server openocd interface makes any sense.
From current organization:
-target is a device/cpu
-target needs physical connection using interface
Remote
Ref. your todo: shouldn't that be sorted out before we merge it?
How does this affect the arm target?
The actual code in HEAD tries to load arm code to mips target. Bad idea. :-)
My patch checks for mips target and branches if needed. All other targets
are not affected.
This is the reason
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Tomek CEDRO tomek.ce...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
I definitely want to see a gdb server target. I don't think
a gdb server openocd interface makes any sense.
From current organization:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
No reason why target should require this in the future. I'd also like to see a
dummy target for testing purposes that requires no interface.
Hmm, such dummy target could become pretty good universal framework
for
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tomek CEDRO tomek.ce...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
No reason why target should require this in the future. I'd also like to see
a
dummy target for testing purposes that requires no interface.
On 10:45 Fri 03 Jun , Tormod Volden wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
normaly in shell we so
if [ x$1 = xnosubmodule ]; then
to compatible with old shell too
Yes, I have seen this construct a lot in old scripts, but it reduces
16 matches
Mail list logo
