From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20000 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2002 18:49:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19992 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 18:49:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 18:49:56 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QIZ2l31288 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:35:02 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QInqu13730; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:49:52 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (IDENT:1Wm7tdjl99vRDNyKjv2V88XaiufRrRE+@romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QInoe03524; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:49:50 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7QInmi31557; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:49:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:04:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020826184948.ZM31556@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Elena Zannoni "Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers" (Aug 26, 2:23pm) References: <3D692D27.4010003@ges.redhat.com> <1020826155511.ZM30766@localhost.localdomain> <15722.22357.397126.473082@localhost.redhat.com> <1020826172622.ZM31173@localhost.localdomain> <15722.29238.818092.258790@localhost.redhat.com> To: Elena Zannoni , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00856.txt.bz2 On Aug 26, 2:23pm, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > If I'm not mistaken, the pseudos on the e500 are synthesized from the > > raw registers without the need for outside sources such as memory. > > That being the case, saving the raw registers (or, more precisely, the > > cooked registers corresponding to the raw registers) should be > > sufficient. > > Yes. I was thinking about this other problem I encountered: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00689.html I see. > > In fact, for the e500, I think we'll need to take care NOT to write > > back the pseudos since this could potentially cause information to > > be lost. It would depend upon the order in which things were done. > > If the pseudos are restored after the raw registers that they map > > onto, the most significant bits would likely be wiped out. (In this > > case the pseudos are narrower than the raw registers, right?) > > > > The pseudo register write function is written so that it preserves the > upper bits. If you use that technique you should be safe. Okay, good. (I was concerned that we might need e500-specific iterators when Andrew commits his patch. But I guess we won't...) Kevin