From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23058 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2002 20:52:14 -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 23050 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 20:52:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 20:52:13 -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 g7QKbJl31316 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:37:19 -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 g7QKq6u15804; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:52:06 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QKq5e08972; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:52:05 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7QKq3g32193; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:52:03 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:55:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020826205203.ZM32192@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[patch/wip] i386 register groups" (Aug 26, 3:42pm) References: <3D6A84C1.30407@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/wip] i386 register groups MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00866.txt.bz2 On Aug 26, 3:42pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Just to prove its possible :-) The attached adds reggroups.[hc] (is > reggroup.[ch] a better name?) and then uses it in the i386. It > certainly helps. The new output looks like: > > (gdb) info registers > eax 0xbffff824 -1073743836 > ecx 0x0 0 [...] > orig_eax 0xffffffff -1 > > (ignoring orig_eax :-) while the [very] old output looks like: Any opinion on what should be done about orig_eax? I.e, does it really belong in the "info registers" list? [...] > So I think its an improvement. Yes, I agree. Kevin