Re: [rfa] Use better types for ARM registers

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:58:27AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I can't see any problems with this.  Abstractly, registers are just
> buckets of bits, it's the use context that determines whether they are
> signed or unsigned (or something else entirely).  In some ways it might
> be nice if we could enforce all interpretation of the bits to be
> explicit, but I can see that might be an unnecessary overhead.  I guess
> interpreting the value by default as unsigned is closer to my ideal than
> defaulting to signed.

Thanks, checked in.  I agree it'd be nice, but I don't think it's
practical.

> One of the things that has always frustrated me with GDB is to print out
> the value of an integer register (or pair of such registers) as a
> floating point value -- ie, there's no obvious way to do the equivalent
> of *(double*)&regnum.

Hmm, I'll keep this message around... really the implementation would
be easy, we'd just need a syntax.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery