From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2383 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2003 15:17:03 -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 2370 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2003 15:17:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO motgate4.mot.com) (144.189.100.102) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2003 15:17:02 -0000 Received: from az33exr02.mot.com (az33exr02.mot.com [10.64.251.232]) by motgate4.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate4) with ESMTP id h8TFH1Sw018258 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:17:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from zuk07exm02.sps.mot.com (zuk07exm02.sps.mot.com [10.137.5.246]) by az33exr02.mot.com (Motorola/az33exr02) with ESMTP id h8TFGwSt016651 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:17:00 -0500 Received: by zuk07exm02.sps.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.2) id ; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:16:42 +0100 Message-ID: <15BB35FC418BD511868500D0B7B916B108A35017@zuk07exm02.sps.mot.com> From: LaPonsey Brian-ra4951 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: mcore registers Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:17:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00621.txt.bz2 I have written a gdb stub for mcore-elf, and in my efforts to improve it I have noticed that gdb defines too many control registers for the mcore chip. Despite having a 5-bit field in the control register move instructions, there are not actually 32 control registers on the mcore. All the existing mcore designs, either current or planned, have only 13 control registers. The gdb source code defines all 32, but cr13..cr31 don't actually exist. It speeds up the stub not to have to report the status of these phantom registers over the serial line. Patching them out of gdb also allows the stub to keep its RAM requirement below 1K. My question is, would it be advisable to make this change to the gdb mainline? I realize that there will always be unintended consequences of such a patch. Any thoughts? Regards, -- Brian LaPonsey Motorola Semiconductor