From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20232 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2003 01:50:16 -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 20157 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2003 01:50:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2003 01:50:16 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 199Epg-0003ns-00; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:50:28 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 199EpO-0006bI-00; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:50:10 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 03:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch for printing 64-bit values in i386 registers; STABS format Message-ID: <20030426015010.GA25355@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200304242231.h3OMVqM13587@dhcp357.corp.google.com> <20030425002744.GA9492@nevyn.them.org> <200304252121.h3PLLD8I000461@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20030425213548.GA22505@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9B6AE.90001@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EA9B6AE.90001@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00502.txt.bz2 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 > >> > >> 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