From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14452 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2001 22:57:56 -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 14402 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2001 22:57:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2001 22:57:54 -0000 Received: from rtl.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28732; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:57:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ezannoni@localhost) by rtl.cygnus.com (8.11.2/8.11.0) id fB5N3vu06349; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:03:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: krustylu.cygnus.com: ezannoni set sender to ezannoni@cygnus.com using -f From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15374.42973.308741.364141@krustylu.cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:57:00 -0000 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, vmakarov@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] config/rs6000/tm-rs6000.h STAB_REG_TO_REGNUM In-Reply-To: <1011205225148.ZM6006@ocotillo.lan> References: <15367.50385.770078.559327@krustylu.cygnus.com> <3C07CD1A.4010403@cygnus.com> <15367.63139.561172.481628@krustylu.cygnus.com> <1011205215641.ZM5797@ocotillo.lan> <15374.41016.151518.113014@krustylu.cygnus.com> <1011205225148.ZM6006@ocotillo.lan> X-Mailer: VM 6.97 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 Kevin Buettner writes: > On Dec 5, 5:31pm, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > > + case 64: /* mq */ > > > > + if (TARGET_ARCHITECTURE->mach == bfd_mach_ppc_601) > > > > + regnum = 124; > > > > > > Hmm... I wish we had a symbolic constant for this one. (It took me > > > a while to figure out why this register number was different.) > > > > Hmmm, should these regnums be part of the gdbarch_tdep structure? > > That's how I did it for the SH. (Defined to -1 if not applicable) It > > seems to me that not all the variants have register (say, for > > instance) 67 defined to be the LR register or even exist. This way we > > could also do error checking in this routine. > > I had occassion to look at SH recently and saw how you did things. I > think the mechanism you propose would be appropriate for PPC too. > > Kevin Okey. I'll do that then. Thanks! Elena