Re: [patch] Add PS_REGNUM.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:54:02PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >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...
> 
> I think it is the other way round.  PS_REGNUM is the only one being used 
> correctly - when >=0, std-regs.c (new file) maps $ps onto a 
> hardware/pseudo register.  Cf the GDB manual.
> 
> On the other hand FP_REGNUM, PC_REGNUM and SP_REGNUM that are being used 
> ``incorrectly''(1).  They have no meaning outside of std-regs.c yet are 
> used throughout GDB.

So what you're saying is that you added PS_REGNUM so that it could be
used as a standard $ps register name, not for the rest of GDB, right?

I don't really see the point; anyone who wants to look at the processor
status register presumably knows what some of the bits in it mean,
which is entirely architecture dependant.  But caveat implementor :)

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