From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13035 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2007 20:03:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 13026 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2007 20:03:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:03:25 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0740198339; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:03:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2D89829E; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:03:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IfLIX-0001GG-SX; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:03:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Markus Deuling , GDB Patches , Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , Jim Blandy , rearnsha@arm.com, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [rfc] [00/16] Get rid of current gdbarch Message-ID: <20071009200321.GA4564@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Markus Deuling , GDB Patches , Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , Jim Blandy , rearnsha@arm.com, Mark Kettenis References: <20071008141039.GA12235@caradoc.them.org> <200710091959.l99Jxdqp015297@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200710091959.l99Jxdqp015297@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:59:39PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > I agree that everything would be much easier if the register numbers > were constants. But note that rs6000 is not the only platform where > this is not the case, I see the same (or even worse) also in mips, > m32c, xtensa, ... (The mep usage also seems suspicious.) Yes. For some platforms (xtensa, mep) there may not be much we can do... and MIPS presents its own unique problems because of the use of pseudo registers for everything. Hmm, this makes me wonder how deep the broken goes. Maybe we shouldn't translate from DWARF numbers to internal ones until later. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery