Re: [RFA] ppc: include register numbers in gdbarch_tdep structure.

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>]

On Dec 9,  3:04pm, Elena Zannoni wrote:

> This is a new patch for
> 
>  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-12/msg00160.html
> 
> Tested on aix4.3, solaris-x-powerpc-eabi, ppcnbsd, ppclinux.
> 
> Elena
> 
> 2001-12-09  Elena Zannoni  <ezannoni@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* config/rs6000/tm-rs6000.h (STAB_REG_TO_REGNUM): Remove
> 	definition, it is now multiarched.
> 	* ppc-tdep.h (struct gdbarch_tdep): Move from rs6000-tdep.c.  Add
> 	fields for special register numbers.
> 	* rs6000-tdep.c (rs6000_gdbarch_init): Initialize new tdep special
> 	regnum fields.
> 	(rs6000_saved_pc_after_call): Use gdbarch_tdep registers fields
> 	instead of hardcoded macros.
> 	(branch_dest, rs6000_pop_frame, rs6000_fix_call_dummy,
> 	ppc_push_return_address, rs6000_frame_saved_pc,
> 	frame_get_saved_regs, rs6000_frame_chain,
> 	rs6000_store_return_value): Ditto.
> 	(rs6000_stab_reg_to_regnum): New function.
> 	* ppcnbsd-nat.c (fetch_inferior_registers,
> 	store_inferior_registers, fetch_core_registers): Ditto.
> 	* ppc-linux-tdep.c (ppc_linux_in_sigtramp,
> 	ppc_linux_frame_init_saved_regs): Ditto.
> 	* ppc-linux-nat.c (ppc_register_u_addr, supply_gregset,
> 	fill_gregset): Ditto.
> 	* ppc-bdm.c (bdm_ppc_fetch_registers, bdm_ppc_store_registers):
> 	Ditto.

Approved.

Though I do wonder if it was really necessary to move register
numbers which are truly constant to the gdbarch_tdep struct.  BTW,
this wouldn't bother me so much if we could use inline functions
in C.

Kevin