From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7407 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2009 16:26:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 7398 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2009 16:26:13 -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 16:26:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46902BAB7A; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:26:06 -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 AzoDcMH4EAS8; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71632BAB94; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 631FCE7ACD; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:26:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Aleksandar Ristovski , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] mips-tdep: info registers Message-ID: <20090223162602.GH26056@adacore.com> References: <20090223020820.GC26056@adacore.com> <20090223025230.GA11699@caradoc.them.org> <200902230718.n1N7IoBD028396@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090223161756.GA19411@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090223161756.GA19411@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/msg00445.txt.bz2 > The problem is, this doesn't do what you want it to do. It looks up > GDB internal register number 1. That just happens, at the moment, > to match up with the raw register backing $at. But it might change > in the future. It's not "the register named $1", which is what a > MIPS user should expect. I agree, now, that we shouldn't have this feature. I can have a look at removing it... -- Joel