From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25296 invoked by alias); 21 May 2003 18:16:51 -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 25261 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 18:16:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 May 2003 18:16:50 -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 h4LIGoH09242 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 14:16:50 -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 h4LIGnI14220; Wed, 21 May 2003 14:16:49 -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 h4LIGmo25342; Wed, 21 May 2003 14:16:48 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4LIGg431855; Wed, 21 May 2003 11:16:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 18:16:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030521181642.ZM31854@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [RFA] MIPS: MIPS_LAST_FP_ARG_REGNUM, MIPS_LAST_ARG_REGNUM changes" (May 21, 2:06pm) References: <1030519215125.ZM24993@localhost.localdomain> <3ECBA69B.1060108@redhat.com> <1030521163655.ZM31364@localhost.localdomain> <3ECBC039.7040502@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/msg00392.txt.bz2 On May 21, 2:06pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > 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? > > It's an offset from register 0. That doesn't help either for the same reasons that I gave earlier. (I left it quoted below.) > However, I think if the first patch is > sorted out, this will fallout. I don't recall seeing a response to my first patch. I'll check the archives... > Andrew Kevin > > 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 > > > >-- End of excerpt from Andrew Cagney