You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Much like #82, which implemented x's sibling packet (X - for binary memory writes), this should be a simple, straightforward packet to add support for. It will simply hook into the existing Target-facing read_memory methods, and work as expected.
One other minor thing to keep in mind: we'll also want to add a new fn use_x_packet(&self) -> bool method to Target, in order to give space-constrained users the ability to opt-out of support for this packet, just as #82 added use_x_upcase_packet when it implemented support for X.
Fortunately, GDB and LLDB share the exact same syntax and semantics for this packet, so no extra handling will be required to maintain compatibility between the two clients.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
GDB recently (Dec 2024) gained support for this packet, via bminor/binutils-gdb@e16e638
Much like #82, which implemented
x
's sibling packet (X
- for binary memory writes), this should be a simple, straightforward packet to add support for. It will simply hook into the existing Target-facingread_memory
methods, and work as expected.One other minor thing to keep in mind: we'll also want to add a new
fn use_x_packet(&self) -> bool
method toTarget
, in order to give space-constrained users the ability to opt-out of support for this packet, just as #82 addeduse_x_upcase_packet
when it implemented support forX
.Note that LLDB has already supported this packet for quite a while now. See https://lldb.llvm.org/resources/lldbgdbremote.html#x-binary-memory-read
Fortunately, GDB and LLDB share the exact same syntax and semantics for this packet, so no extra handling will be required to maintain compatibility between the two clients.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: