From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23196 invoked by alias); 4 May 2004 16:01:36 -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 23189 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 16:01:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 May 2004 16:01:35 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i44G1ZkG008372 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:01:35 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i44G1Zv27133 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:01:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-6.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.6]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i44G1Ym6020008; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:01:34 -0400 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i44G1TOR005660; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:01:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:01:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: let gdbarch define FP0_REGNUM on rs6000 Message-Id: <20040504090129.74ce59dd@saguaro> In-Reply-To: References: <4097A012.2050409@gnu.org> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 On 04 May 2004 10:16:25 -0500 Jim Blandy wrote: > > > - #define FP0_REGNUM 32 /* Floating point register 0 */ > > > > Note that FP0_REGNUM is on the deprecate hit list, it's superseeded by > > things like reggroups and regsets. As with other code, you should > > s/FP0_REGNUM/RS6000_FP0_REGNUM/ where possible. > > Okay. In the RS6000 case, it'd probably be more consistent to simply > use tdep->ppc_fp0_regnum, rather than introducing a new macro. I agree. Consider such a patch to be preapproved. Kevin