From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6922 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2004 15:43:11 -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 6914 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2004 15:43:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2004 15:43:10 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 1F79F1A448A; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:39:01 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16432.58389.45723.945873@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:43:00 -0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: Define only the minimal register set in sh_generic_register_name In-Reply-To: <20040212172905.GF3854@cygbert.vinschen.de> References: <20040212172905.GF3854@cygbert.vinschen.de> X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 Corinna Vinschen writes: > Hi, > > while looking into the sh_generic_register_name function, I began to wonder > why that function defines a register set, which is not exactly generic, > but instead gives a name to all 59 register entries. Many of them are > only correct on CPUs with FPU and/or register banks. > > IMHO, the generic_name function should only define the maximum common > register set, which is the same as the one for the basic sh CPU variant. > > Therefore I'd like to propose the following patch, which does exactly > that. An alternative approach would be, to remove the > sh_generic_register_name entirely and use sh_sh_register_name instead. > Your are right. I would prefer to just get rid of the function entirely. It is already the same as the sh3e_register_name. And after the change it would duplicate the sh_register_name. No point in keeping it around. elena