Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > 
 > > I really think we need to break this implicit link between the raw regs 
 > > and part of the cooked regs, it just causes no-end of confusion.  It's 
 > > fine if we want to say that  some cooked regs are mapped 1:1 onto part of 
 > > the raw regcache, but that should/must be a back-end convenience, and not 
 > > part of gdb's fundamental design (that is asking for the r0 cooked view 
 > > may just happen to fetch the raw r0 register that is at offset zero in the 
 > > regcache, but nothing in GDB-core should assume this).
 > 
 > BTW, it turns out that nothing in core GDB is assuming this (ignoring 
 > the CONVERTABLE mess).  Elena's e500 port maped everything onto a 
 > totally cooked register and nothing noticed.  Core gdb just deals with 
 > cooked registers (or their ulgh offset).
 > 

I think there may still be a couple of places where we are using some
wrong assumptions about the register numbers. At least in target ppc
code. Some harcoded 0 instead of tdep->ppc_gp0_regnum and similar
things. Hopefully those will be flushed out overtime.

Elena