From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16270 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2009 03:00:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 16262 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2009 03:00:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:00:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0552BAB5F; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5dmvPX6CLKaY; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE822BAB55; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:00:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2799FE7ACD; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:00:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:13:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Aleksandar Ristovski , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] mips-tdep: info registers Message-ID: <20090223030014.GE26056@adacore.com> References: <20090223020820.GC26056@adacore.com> <20090223025230.GA11699@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090223025230.GA11699@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 > > Surprisingly, this feature is not documented yet. The documentation > > mentions "info registers regname", but not "info registers regno". > > Would you mind adding a line or two and sending a (separate) patch > > to this list? Eli is the documentation guru... > > Should this feature even exist? This is a different "$1" than > anywhere else in GDB you might type that... I was asking myself this question, but there is explict code in GDB to handle that case, so I thought that this was deliberate. On the other hand, I also thought that this was a very cool way of knowing what register number NUM actually is. For instance, on x86, register number 3 is (drums...) ebx: (gdb) info reg $3 ebx 0xb7e84ff4 -1209511948 With x86, the number of registers is fairly limited, but there are other processors where this isn't the case. The CPU that gave me the largest number of pimples so far is ia64... So I found that the above syntax was a cool thing to know about and worth retaining. But I've been known to debug the debugger to obtain that information, so I'm not terribly attached to this syntax. I agree it is a little confusing with our convenience variables... -- Joel