From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30540 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2002 11:10:17 -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 30532 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2002 11:10:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Sep 2002 11:10:15 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id MAA25843; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:10:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown(172.16.202.26) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma025301; Wed, 4 Sep 02 12:09:23 +0100 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84B9LB18038; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:09:22 +0100 Message-Id: <200209041109.g84B9LB18038@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> To: Jason R Thorpe cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] arm-netbsdelf cross-debugging fixes In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:34:46 PDT." <20020903123446.N12843@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:10:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 > > > * Split a 26-bit R15 into PC and a 32-bit-format PSR. > > > > > > * Take a PC and a 32-bit-format PSR and combine them back > > > into a 26-bit R15. > > > > This is going to conflict horribly with my WIP for using cooked registers. > > Is there any chance it can be separated out, or made less invasive? > > I can put it in armnbsd-tdep.c and make it static, if you want. I only > put it in the generic arm-tdep.c because it seemed like a function of > general utility. > > Would that be okay? Please. The patches for handling cooked registers are already so complex that it's likely to be a nightmare merging them. Anything that simplifies this would be welcome. R.