From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10812 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2002 20:59:37 -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 10805 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 20:59:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 20:59:35 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16uJlB-0007qg-00 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 16:59:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 13:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Add PS_REGNUM. Message-ID: <20020407165937.A30127@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3CAF59CA.1060304@cygnus.com> <20020407143417.A26612@nevyn.them.org> <3CB095CA.6090405@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CB095CA.6090405@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 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