From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-25038-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11899 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2003 19:50:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11869 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2003 19:50:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2003 19:50:07 -0000
Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158])
	by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16398;
	Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:44:17 -0400
Received: from dash ([192.168.20.31]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA14980; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:50:03 -0400
Message-ID: <002d01c32df8$866f5b50$2a00a8c0@dash>
From: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>
To: "Andrew Cagney" <ac131313@redhat.com>,
        "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>,
        "Elena Zannoni" <ezannoni@redhat.com>
Cc: <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
References: <3EE13867.1E530DE9@redhat.com> <3EE38949.7040504@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [regcache] raw vs. cooked...
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 19:50:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2

> > I suspect the test below is not valid for pseudo-registers, since they
> > may not have a location in the reg cache at all.  Anyway, the change
> > makes sh4 work again.
>
> The check's valid.  See the thread: assertion failure in regcache.c
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-05/msg00289.html
>
> Kris, Elena, did a fix get committed?

I assume you're talking about the fix I described in this message:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-05/msg00322.html

It seems like this wouldn't work for SH64 though so I was waiting until I
had some more time to chase it. (or some SH experts piped up).  It certainly
seems to fix the problem for 32 bit SH though.  Perhaps we could do the fix
for all but the 64 bit version and then let someone using SH64 trip on the
assertion and have to fix it?

;-)

Kris