From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1771 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2003 04:32:36 -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 1731 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 04:32:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 04:32:35 -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 h5I4WZH26840 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:32:35 -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 h5I4WZI14780 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:32:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-21.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.21]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I4WZg19722; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:32:35 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5I4WTK11544; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:32:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 04:32:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030618043229.ZM11543@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[patch rfc] Add NUM_REGS pseudo regs to MIPS" (Jun 16, 11:35am) References: <3EEDE3BE.8070207@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfc] Add NUM_REGS pseudo regs to MIPS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00590.txt.bz2 On Jun 16, 11:35am, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Per my last post to an old thread. This adds NUM_REGS pseudo registers > to the MIPS. These pseudo registers, unlike their raw counterparts are > `sane'. They have sensible sizes, offsets, types, ... > > The intent here is to put some distance between the MIPS's messed up raw > register buffer and the ABI registers. As it stands, it doesn't get > save/restore right (it works but not by using the ABI registers). That > can follow. > > Tested on mips-elf. > > thoughts? In light of the recent o32 ABI discussion, I believe the approach that I used is correct for both the ABI / debug info case as well as the cli registers case. I think you should reconsider my patch before proceeding. Kevin