This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers
- From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>,Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:30:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers
- References: <200208281423.PAA16288@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com><3D6CF48C.3080908@ges.redhat.com>
Andrew Cagney writes:
>
> > I really think we need to break this implicit link between the raw regs
> > and part of the cooked regs, it just causes no-end of confusion. It's
> > fine if we want to say that some cooked regs are mapped 1:1 onto part of
> > the raw regcache, but that should/must be a back-end convenience, and not
> > part of gdb's fundamental design (that is asking for the r0 cooked view
> > may just happen to fetch the raw r0 register that is at offset zero in the
> > regcache, but nothing in GDB-core should assume this).
>
> BTW, it turns out that nothing in core GDB is assuming this (ignoring
> the CONVERTABLE mess). Elena's e500 port maped everything onto a
> totally cooked register and nothing noticed. Core gdb just deals with
> cooked registers (or their ulgh offset).
>
I think there may still be a couple of places where we are using some
wrong assumptions about the register numbers. At least in target ppc
code. Some harcoded 0 instead of tdep->ppc_gp0_regnum and similar
things. Hopefully those will be flushed out overtime.
Elena