From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31610 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2002 18:35:19 -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 31602 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 18:35:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 18:35:17 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16uHUX-0006vn-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:34:17 -0400 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Add PS_REGNUM. Message-ID: <20020407143417.A26612@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3CAF59CA.1060304@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CAF59CA.1060304@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 03:25:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > This patch just fills in a gap in the current *_REGNUMs by adding > PS_REGNUM. Unlike the others. This one really does allow -1 as the > default value. > > (FP_REGNUM et.al. require real values as there is code around that, > unfortunatly, depends on there being a real FP register et.al. ulgh). > > committed, > Andrew What benefit does this have? PC_REGNUM I can understand. Even SP_REGNUM. But it's not like PS_REGNUM has any meaning to common code... -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer