Re: [patch] Add PS_REGNUM.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

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... :)

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