Re: RFC: Available registers as a target property

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:28:35AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 20:32, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> >   /* If this flag is set, GDB should save and restore this register
> >      around calls to an inferior function.  */
> >   int save_restore;
> 
> Why would the target care about this?  It seems to be more a property of
> an ABI than the target.  
> 
> In the (IMO) unlikely case that we really want to keep this, I think it
> should have a 'not-my-responsibility-to-decide' setting.

This isn't the conventional callee-saved vs. caller-saved decision. GDB
needs to handle bogus functions so it should save/restore all "normal"
registers, but there may be some registers in a system for which this
behavior is inappropriate.  Perhaps there's a better name for this if I
invert the meaning... For instance, a debugger should probably not muck
with cp15 registers across a function call, even if they're not marked
readonly, to allow the user to modify them explicitly.

I'm trying to express the concept of save_reggroup/restore_reggroup for
target specified registers.  Have you got another idea of how to do it?
Maybe it's not necessary after all?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC