From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31042 invoked by alias); 21 May 2003 16:37:04 -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 31023 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 16:37:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 May 2003 16:37:03 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4LGb3H13625 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 12:37:03 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4LGb2I13616; Wed, 21 May 2003 12:37:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4LGb1o14328; Wed, 21 May 2003 12:37:01 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4LGau031365; Wed, 21 May 2003 09:36:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:37:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030521163655.ZM31364@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [RFA] MIPS: MIPS_LAST_FP_ARG_REGNUM, MIPS_LAST_ARG_REGNUM changes" (May 21, 12:17pm) References: <1030519215125.ZM24993@localhost.localdomain> <3ECBA69B.1060108@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [RFA] MIPS: MIPS_LAST_FP_ARG_REGNUM, MIPS_LAST_ARG_REGNUM changes Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 On May 21, 12:17pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > This is patch 2 of many more to come. It depends upon > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-05/msg00268.html. > > > > Okay? > > Per my earlier comment, I don't think this one is right. I don't think > things like LAST_ARG_REGNUM belong in that cooked/raw reg structure. > Instead, they should exist out side it. > > If the code really wants to differentiate between the raw and cooked > register number, why not use the more explicit: > > rawnum->gp0_regnum + tdep->last_arg_regnum So, last_arg_regnum represents a count of the number of argument registers? That's fine (at the moment anyway) for the GPRs, but it doesn't work for the FPRs. For o32, I have things arranged so that there are a total of 16 cooked FPRs and 32 raw FPRs. Therefore, argument register counts will be different between cooked vs raw. IMO, it really does make sense to put these values into the cooked/raw structure. I'm having difficulty understanding why you're objecting to this layout. Kevin