From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18074 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2009 19:22:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 18064 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Mar 2009 19:22:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:22:14 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CB3107CF for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:22:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6688B10514 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:22:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LfJ91-0000c6-I0 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:22:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] mips-tdep: info registers Message-ID: <20090305192211.GA2342@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090223025230.GA11699@caradoc.them.org> <200902230718.n1N7IoBD028396@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090223161756.GA19411@caradoc.them.org> <20090223162602.GH26056@adacore.com> <20090227195607.GJ26056@adacore.com> <20090305191245.GB3744@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090305191245.GB3744@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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 Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:12:45AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > IIRC, you've worked on the mips target a few times in the past. > Do you forsee any problem if mips_register_name return "0" .. "31" > for the raw GP registers? > > What Aleksandar is trying to do is allow "info register 1" to work > on mips, instead of having to use "info register at"... > > Thanks! I think it's weird for them to map to the raw registers. info registers displays the ABI-sized registers, so why should these be any different? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery