From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25513 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2003 16:38:58 -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 25484 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2003 16:38:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2003 16:38:58 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19hB1V-00017W-Ia for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:38:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfc, 6.0?] only allow raw raw registers; Was: [patch rfc] Add NUM_REGS pseudo regs to MIPS Message-ID: <20030728163857.GA28595@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200307271855.h6RItIho043770@oberon.asicdesigners.com> <3F2442B3.1000506@redhat.com> <3F254328.2030407@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F254328.2030407@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00495.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:37:12AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > I've checked this tweak into 6.0 and mainline: > > >2003-07-27 Andrew Cagney > > > > * mips-tdep.c (print_gp_register_row): Print the GPR's register > > MOD NUM_REGS. > > > > and this change into just the mainline (6.0 will follow in a few days if > no one notices a problem): > > >2003-07-27 Andrew Cagney > > > > * regcache.c (struct regcache_descr): Update comments on > > nr_raw_registers. > > (init_legacy_regcache_descr): Don't set nr_raw_registers or > > sizeof_raw_register_valid_p. > > (init_regcache_descr): Set nr_raw_registers and > > sizeof_raw_register_valid_p before calling > > init_legacy_regcache_descr. > > On a related note, before this change (2003-07-07 actually) mipsel-linux was completely broken. Info registers, in addition to printing R90, also claimed that all registers were zero. Backtraces broke for the same reason. I haven't tried newer mainline yet; I will today or tomorrow. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer