From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15644 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2003 22:03:23 -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 15636 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2003 22:03:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2003 22:03:22 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h3RM36dZ016533; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:03:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h3RM36Ak016422; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:03:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h3RM35Ur016419; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:03:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200304272203.h3RM35Ur016419@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: ac131313@redhat.com CC: drow@mvista.com, colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3EA9FDDF.8070205@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:32:47 -0400) Subject: Re: patch for printing 64-bit values in i386 registers; STABS format 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> <20030426030534.GA26304@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9FDDF.8070205@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00516.txt.bz2 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:32:47 -0400 From: Andrew Cagney > I'm afraid I don't understand, and I still don't see your reasoning > against this approach. It isn't necessary, just like register convertible and register raw/virtual size; .... that go before it, also were not necessary. And now all these years later, GDB is still yet to expunge. I still don't see how you can get rid of the register convertible stuff. On the i386 I still need it for variables stuffed into the floating point registers. Until someone does the right think - add support for values scattered across registers and memory - hacks should be confined to architecture specific code. But even if someone does add support for values scattered across multiple registers and/or memory, we still need the architecture method I proposed. There simply is too much debugging info out there that can't express values being scattered across multiple registers. And I don't think the hack you proposed is a good idea. I think it's better to add a new architecture method with a clear purpose than abuse an existing mechanism for something that it wasn't quite intended for. Even if the architecture method in question would only be used by a single target. Mark