This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> However, in this situation, >> > pseudo_rengo("r0") != regcache_regno("r0"), yet we effectively have >> > >> > REGSITER_RAW_SIZE (pseudo_regno ("r0")) >> > and >> > REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (regcache_regno ("r0")) > >> >> Sorry, I still don't understand. > > > In my view of things, the domain of the result returned by pseudo_regno() > is > 0..Num_pseudos, Pseudo-registers occupy the space: [NUM_REGS .. NUM_REGS+NUM_PSEUDO_REGS) there isn't an overlap. As I said, I'd like to have strongly typed ``struct pseudoreg *'' and ``struct rawreg *''. In the mean time, this numeric separation is the onlything we have. > and the domain of regcache_regno() is > > 0..NUM_REGS > > But we have cases where the two functions return a different number for > the same register; more precisely, we might encounter the situation where > > pseudo_regno ("int_reg0") == regcache_regno ("float_reg5") That isn't correct. Andrew
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |