From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12123 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2006 13:01:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 12115 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2006 13:01:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:01:52 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FtlIE-0004aL-8h; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:01:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Earnshaw Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa] Use better types for ARM registers Message-ID: <20060623130150.GA17559@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Earnshaw , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060620194545.GA32554@nevyn.them.org> <1150887507.25267.8.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1150887507.25267.8.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 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*)®num. Hmm, I'll keep this message around... really the implementation would be easy, we'd just need a syntax. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery