Re: [patch/rfc/rfa:sh] gdbarch_register_read() -> gdbarch_cooked_register_read()

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > >  >  > One NB.  The parameter set is technically redundant.  The assertion:
 > >  >  > 
 > >  >  > 	gdbarch == regcache_gdbarch (regcache)
 > >  >  > 
 > >  >  > always holds so the gdbarch parameter isn't strictly needed.  I figured 
 > >  >  > that it is more convenient to include the gdbarch as a parameter and 
 > >  >  > save everyone the hassle of including the above line in their *-tdep code.
 > >  >  > 
 > >  >  > The SH stuff should be reviewed.  I think its on the right track since 
 > >  >  > sh-tdep.c no longer refers to current_regcache!!!
 > >  >  > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > So, wait a minute, is the sh the only port that overwrites the generic
 > > register reads and writes to handle pseudo registers?
 > 
 > Gnew speak: s/pseudo/cooked/.  Pseudo registers are implemented 
 > differently :-)
 > 

right, I am still catching up with the new jargon.

Gnew, the 'stralian for GNU? :-)

 > In GDB (i.e. the official GDB sources)? Yes.
 > 
 > The only architecture using the gdbarch register read/write (i.e. the 
 > new cooked interface) is the SH.
 > 

Oh dear. Watch out <drumroll> I am adding this to the ppc as
well. Will be submitted relatively soon (still WIP). I've got 64 bit
regs that can be viewed/manipulated as 32 bit ones.

 > The only platform using the old fetch/store pseudo register interface is 
 > the m68hc11.  The conversion looks easy.
 > 
 > The MIPS is the platform that desperatly needs to start using cooked 
 > registers.  The Arm is waiting, ready to pounce, when all the changes 
 > are in.
 > 



Elena


 > enjoy,
 > Andrew
 >