Re: RFA: handle missing fpregs

[Jason Thorpe <thorpej at wasabisystems dot com>]

On May 10, 2004, at 3:15 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:

> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> How about changing the comment to this:
>
>   /* FIXME: jimb/2004-05-05: Some PPC variants don't have floating
>      point registers.  Traditionally, GDB's register set has still
>      listed the floating point registers for such machines, so this
>      code is harmless.  However, the new E500 port actually omits the
>      floating point registers entirely from the register set --- they
>      don't even have register numbers assigned to them.
>
>      It's not clear to me how best to update this code, so this assert
>      will alert the first person to encounter the NetBSD/E500
>      combination to the problem.  */

Ah, this clarifies the situation greatly.  I didn't realize that we 
were in E500 land with this change.

> How is the change to the code itself?  The present code, if run when
> the current architecture is the E500, will just inappropriate numbers
> for the floating-point registers and hit the assert in
> regcache_raw_supply, if you're lucky.  So the change is an improvement
> over the current state of affairs.

If I am to understand correctly, the assert won't trip on e.g. 405 or 
440... if that is true (i.e. does not break NetBSD FPU-less PowerPC 
support that currently works), then it's OK with me.

Thanks!

        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part