From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12516 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2007 11:54:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 12505 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2007 11:53:59 -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; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:53:55 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20FA9833A; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:53:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA3198339; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:53:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ifa8O-0002fH-Gf; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:53:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, deuling@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org, brobecker@adacore.com, jimb@codesourcery.com, rearnsha@arm.com Subject: Re: [rfc] [00/16] Get rid of current gdbarch Message-ID: <20071010115352.GA10228@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , uweigand@de.ibm.com, deuling@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org, brobecker@adacore.com, jimb@codesourcery.com, rearnsha@arm.com References: <20071008141039.GA12235@caradoc.them.org> <200710091959.l99Jxdqp015297@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <20071009200321.GA4564@caradoc.them.org> <200710100903.l9A93o9D018246@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200710100903.l9A93o9D018246@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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/msg00229.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:03:50AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > The solution here is (and always has been) making GDB's register > number encoding a truly internal encoding. Then we could easily unify > the different rs6000/powerpc variants. I understand that people want > to keep the ability to talk to old stubs, so the remote target support > code in GDB should take care of doing the conversion. The patches I posted last week do this for PowerPC, in fact! But there are places where we can't do it this way - at least not without bigger changes. For instance, on MIPS the dwarf2_reg_to_regnum method returns pseudo registers. The numbering of pseudo registers starts at NUM_REGS, which varies depending on the OS/ABI and on what target we end up connected to :-( -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery