From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23089 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2003 03:05:41 -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 23075 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2003 03:05:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2003 03:05:40 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 199G0e-0003ue-00; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 22:05:52 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 199G0M-0006qu-00; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:05:34 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 03:39:00 -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: <20030426030534.GA26304@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> <20030426015010.GA25355@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9F295.2090803@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EA9F295.2090803@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:44:37PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>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? > > The assumption that values continue into sequential registers is, > unfortunatly. how stabs works :-( So? I don't want to bind anything in GDB's design to how stabs works. That's gotten us in all sorts of trouble. > The consequence of `without adding an architecture method' is that it > confinds the i386 case to the i386. The MIPS case, which is far worse, > will also be the same (at present there is a slew of per-architecture > methods that can be eliminated when the MIPS switches to the same strategy). I'm afraid I don't understand, and I still don't see your reasoning against this approach. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer