Re: patch for printing 64-bit values in i386 registers; STABS format

Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-26T01:50:16Z

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 06:29:02PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 11:21:13PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:27:44 -0400
> >> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> >>
> >> Hey, Mark, this sounds very much like a change you proposed. What ever
> >> happened to that patch?
> >>
> >>It's still happily sitting in my tree :-(. There didn't seem to be
> >>any consensus on whether making this change was a good idea. I still
> >>think it is. It's an improvement for the majority of our users, and
> >>it isn't making things worse for others. Do you think I should
> >>re-submit my patch?
> >
> >
> >I do, definitely.
>
> FYI,
>
> It's possible to fix this without adding an architecture method, or
> implementing location expressions (the penny just dropped). The basic
> problem is the same as for the MIPS - need a custom register area. Hence:
>
> - define a sequence of nameless cooked ([NUM_REGS ..
> NUM_REGS+NUM_PSEUDO_REGS) range) registers ordered the way stabs would
> like them
> - modify the existing stabs_regnum_to_regnum to map the messed up
> registers onto those values

Could you explain why you think that (which I personally think is much
grosser, since it perpuates the assumption that values continue into
sequential registers) is a better solution than Mark's approach?

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer