From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12244-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21229 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2002 13:47:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21197 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2002 13:47:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jan 2002 13:47:48 -0000
Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id NAA05693; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:47:47 GMT
Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma005464; Tue, 22 Jan 02 13:47:35 GMT
Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28979;
	Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:47:34 GMT
Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18])
	by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15786;
	Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:47:34 GMT
Message-Id: <200201221347.NAA15786@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
cc: msnyder@redhat.com, fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
        Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Organization: ARM Ltd.
X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd)
X-Fax: +44 1223 400410
X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ.
X-Url: http://www.arm.com/
Subject: Re: [RFC] "info registers" is misleading 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:46:18 +0200."
             <8361-Tue22Jan2002124617+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:47:00 -0000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00689.txt.bz2

> > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:08:36 -0800
> > From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> > 
> > This is an old old issue.  The frame pointer register
> > is special.  Info registers does not show the actual
> > value of the fp register -- it shows the virtual frame pointer
> > (the address of the function's stack frame).  Usually
> > it's the same value -- unles you're in a frameless function
> > (ie. one that does not use the frame pointer register).
> 
> Shouldn't we document this?  I can write up the change, if you tell
> me that the above description is all that there is to it.

No, we should fix it.  Lying about what is in a machine register is just 
misleading.

R.