Re: [patch] Add PS_REGNUM.

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-04-07T21:12:15Z

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:08:41PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >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?
>
> Yes. And that is how FP_REGNUM et.al. should be used ....

Completely agree.

> >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 :)
>
> Who am I to argue with the documentation :-)

Didn't know it was there, but now I see it. So true... :)