Re: [RFA] Basic structure to describe register formats

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:10:16PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Almost approved,  I've been pokeing at random targets that once worked 
> and they have now all been broken by multi-arch.
> 
> >@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> >+name:arm
> >+resume:r11,sp,pc
> >+4:r0
> >+4:r1
> >+4:r2
> 
> 
> My only quarm is with this.  It extends the G packet definition a little 
> - lines with a leading letter get ignored just like comments and blanks. 
>  Correct?

Do we even have such a definition?  I didn't think we did yet.

If so, then yes, I think that's a good extension.  Also I would commit
it with the number in bits rather than bytes.

> Any way I think EXPEDITE to better word for describing what is to be 
> done with those registers.  SID uses that word to describe this exact 
> same list.

That's a good word for what's going on here, I quite like it.  OK with
that change?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer