From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8137 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2003 15:25:35 -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 8129 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 15:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 15:25:35 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19AWzN-0005BE-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:25:49 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19AWz3-0007VZ-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:25:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: re-ordered i386 regcache Message-ID: <20030429152529.GA28812@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030428161443.GA30324@nevyn.them.org> <3EAD58B8.2070003@redhat.com> <20030428192506.GA11978@nevyn.them.org> <3EADB095.2090409@redhat.com> <20030428233106.GA7307@nevyn.them.org> <3EADE027.90209@redhat.com> <20030429044506.GA11200@nevyn.them.org> <3EAE8C6B.2050403@redhat.com> <20030429150810.GA12043@nevyn.them.org> <3EAE9847.90809@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EAE9847.90809@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00544.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >All three require a projection such that, assumed contigious, debug info > >>registers project onto raw registers. Isn't this what i386 has? > > > > > >I don't think so. All three need a view of registers slightly > >different from the "normal" one, but they don't have "assumed > >contiguous debug info registers". In fact in e500 they're assumed > >not-contiguous. > > Please study the code. A 32 bit MIPS ABI on a 64 bit MIPS represents > long long as two 32 bit sub-parts of two 64 bit registers; the two 32 > bit parts are assumed to be adjacent. > > The adjacent assumption will eventually be lifted, but that will be done > by someone implementing something like location descriptions. I posit that this is the exact same problem as the i386 is currently facing. Remember, location descriptions come from the debug reader, not from the target. Where do you think these hypothetical descriptors to tell us which two registers the long long value occupies will come from? Current debug info won't give them to us. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer