From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21480 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2009 17:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 21467 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2009 17:56:25 -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; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:56:18 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D845210EAC; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:58:14 +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 A3A9A1072B; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:58:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1My859-0007Ep-DR; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:56:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Eager Cc: Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for Xilinx MicroBlaze Message-ID: <20091014175615.GA27572@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Eager , Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Eli Zaretskii References: <4ACA9EE8.1040007@eagercon.com> <20091014014655.GL5272@adacore.com> <4AD60F09.6020607@eagercon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AD60F09.6020607@eagercon.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:48:57AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: > >>+ struct regcache *regcache = get_current_regcache (); > > > >This one raised a red flag, as we try to avoid depending on global > >variables. But I'm not sure what the kosher way of getting the regcache > >would be. I thought there would be method to get the regcache from > >a frame, but apparently not. Perhaps the right way is to use > >get_thread_arch_regcache (inferior_ptid, gdbarch), but I'm not sure. > >I'll ask Ulrich, who knows this area a lot better. > > I wasn't able to find a better way to get the regcache either. Perhaps > it's known farther up the call tree, but it isn't passed to the > software single step routine. Why do you need the regcache, rather than getting registers from the frame? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery