From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7327 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2003 22:03:10 -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 7318 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2003 22:03:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ns1.xcllnt.net) (209.128.86.226) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2003 22:03:09 -0000 Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9MM2xbe052102; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9MM2wLd010532; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9MM2wCO010531; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:02:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:03:00 -0000 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: "J. Johnston" Cc: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: ia64 tdep patch Message-ID: <20031022220258.GA10464@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <3F9049EF.8060209@redhat.com> <1031020201315.ZM20659@localhost.localdomain> <3F9459B6.5000909@redhat.com> <1031021222239.ZM26261@localhost.localdomain> <3F95BB43.1040703@redhat.com> <1031022193747.ZM31624@localhost.localdomain> <3F96EF3E.6070402@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F96EF3E.6070402@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00661.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:57:34PM -0400, J. Johnston wrote: > >>> > >>>Could you add a comment explaining why the normal method of computing > >>>V32 (via ia64_pseudo_register_read()) is inadequate? > >> > >>I don't know. I had this for safety reasons already in the > >>ia64_frame_prev_register() because I didn't know if it might be > >>called with the pseudo register number or not. This code was > >>copied. Should it be removed in both places? > > > > > >I don't know. I've been studying the code and am wondering why the > >V32 ... V127 pseudo regs were introduced at all. Could you remind > >me of the reason? > > > > They are needed because r32 to r127 are not accessible via the PTRACE > interface. They are accessed via the bsp. Without flagging them as > pseudo-registers, the regcache code returns 0 for all these registers. It depends. For FreeBSD I added ptrace(2) functions to get and set stacked registers that are on the kernel stack. The problem more generally is that registers above bspstore (but below bsp) are not accessable in memory. I think it's better for gdb to keep the distinction between stacked registers on the backing store and "dirty" stacked registers. The distinction avoids that gdb makes assumptions that are only valid on Linux or even only for the native code. BTW: I have partial support for FreeBSD/ia64. I'll send patches as soon as I feel that the backtrace is reliable enough. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net