RE: [RFC] h8300 "info registers" fix

["Michael Snyder" <Michael dot Snyder at palmsource dot com>]

Daniel: 
>On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 01:20:09PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> Grumble -- is the regcache kept in host order, or target order?
>
>Target order.
>
>[Which is apparently a bit weird; most debug interfaces I've seen
>lately use host order.]

That's right -- it's a relic of the fact that the original 
"register cache" was the register packet itself, which is 
generated on the target side.  The target doesn't know anything
about the host, so there's no way that can be in host order.

Anyway, in that case, the gdb_byte[4] approach is more likely
to be correct, eh?

I think I understand the problem now -- the pseudo-register is
only one byte, so it's "natural" to call pseudo_register_read
with a one byte buffer.  But the physical register is four bytes,
so you have to have a four byte buffer to read it.

Wonder why it ever worked?   ;-/