From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24183 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2002 16:31:08 -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 24176 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 16:31:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 16:31:07 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id BFFE010AAA; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:29:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15722.22357.397126.473082@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:26:00 -0000 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers In-Reply-To: <1020826155511.ZM30766@localhost.localdomain> References: <3D692D27.4010003@ges.redhat.com> <1020826155511.ZM30766@localhost.localdomain> X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00850.txt.bz2 Kevin Buettner writes: > On Aug 25, 3:16pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > The attached is work-in-progress to get gdb saving just a subset of > > cooked registers when doing things like an inferior function call. > > Why is it necessary to save the cooked registers during an inferior > function call? I would have thought that being able to save/restore > raw registers would be sufficient. > > (Or did I miss a thread which explains this?) > > Kevin On ppc the e500 general registers are pseudo (i.e.cooked). Those are used in inferior function calls, for parameter passing. I think this is part of the story. Full explanation: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-08/msg00196.html Elena