Piet Delaney wrote: > Hi Dave [I moved]: > > I subscribed to your crash mailing list last evening and didn't receive > anything yet. > Looks like there was a posting today. I remember approving your subscription request. Looking at the current list of subscribers, I see these two: Piet.Delaney(a)tensilica.com piet(a)bluelane.com > How much work do you think it would take to add the xtensa architecture > to crash? > From our IA64 work together I recall it mostly being the backtrace code > needing work. That's certainly a big part of it, but that's only the "gravy" that needs to be done after all of the foundational work is done. New architectures basically require: 1. cloning the arch-specific parts of configure.c so that there can be "#ifdef XTENSA" parts of the code. 2. creating a new "xtensa.c" file that satisfies all of the requirements for the generic machdep-><architecture-data> and machdep-><architecture-function> fields used throughout the common code. The crash sources do contain a template PLATFORM.c file, which is a bit dated and will most likely not have everything needed, but it's a good place to start. You would basically copy PLATFORM.c to xtensa.c, and then do a "s/PLATFORM/xtensa/" on the file, and then start working on the specifics.

3. in conjunction with step 2, satisfying all of the "common" #define's in defs.h. 4. After 1, 2 and 3 are done, update the Makefile to compile the new file, and as it continually fails due to missing stuff, fix then one step at a time. 5. At that point, you can start working on stuff like the backtrace implementation. Although -- now that I think of it -- none of the above will be worth a damn without gdb support of the architecture. And gdb-6.1 certainly doesn't have it unless it's a clone of some pre-existing architecture.

So that's a whole other can of worms. Updating the version of gdb to "merge" with the crash sources is yet another massive, always prone-to-error, always finding-something-that-no-long-applies-anymore, situation.

Dave > Some the the 'vm' command functionality would be helpful right now to debug > a cache/tldb bug that I'm looking at. > > -piet