From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5051 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2002 20:34:58 -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 5044 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 20:34:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 20:34:57 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18AHiZ-0003qy-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:35:11 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18AFr8-0006tn-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:35:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfc rfa:i386] Add i386 specific register groups Message-ID: <20021108203554.GA26388@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3DCBFA0C.70409@redhat.com> <86wunn6cea.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3DCC1F54.1000108@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DCC1F54.1000108@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:32:20PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Andrew Cagney writes: > > > > > >>I should note that the orig_eax register is only a member of the system, > >>save and restore reggroups, and hence is no longer displayed by either > >>`info registers' or `info all-registers'. If you're really desperate > >>you can use the `maint print raw-registers` (which is in the manual :-) > > > > > >Yeah! And you can always say "print $orig_eax", can't you? > > (er, quickly checking ...) > > (top-gdb) print $orig_eax > $1 = -1 > (top-gdb) maint print raw-registers > ... > orig_eax 41 41 308 4 int 0xffffffff > > Yep, of course you can. > > What about save/restore? Should it be saved/restored across an inferior > function call? Absolutely - in fact, that's the whole reason it was added :) > >>This ok? > > > > > >Hmm, why are all registers in group "general"? > > Preserving existing behavior? :-^ > > > I'd expect the group > >general to only include the general-purpose registers. > > So you'd like the mmx and sse registers excluded > (general corresponds to `info all-registers')? > > Just give the word, Wait - does general correspond to `all-registers' or `registers'? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer