From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-68202-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6064 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2009 13:18:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 6055 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Nov 2009 13:18:52 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:18:48 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA6DG4IX005106; 	Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:16:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nA6DG37c024061; 	Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:16:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:18:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200911061316.nA6DG37c024061@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: vladimir@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <200911061604.18419.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (message from 	Vladimir Prus on Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:04:18 +0300)
Subject: Re: [m68k] correct m68k_convert_register_p for coldfire
References:  <200911061604.18419.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:04:18 +0300
> 
> The m68k_register_type function will return different types for
> fp0 depending on whether we're on Coldfire, or classic m68k.
> However, m68k_convert_register_p contains code such as:
> 
> 	static int
> 	m68k_convert_register_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, int regnum, struct type *type)
> 	{
> 	  if (!gdbarch_tdep (gdbarch)->fpregs_present)
>     	return 0;
> 	  return (regnum >= M68K_FP0_REGNUM && regnum <= M68K_FP0_REGNUM + 7
> 		  && type != m68881_ext_type (gdbarch));
> 	}
> 
> and therefore will return true on Coldfire. The attached patch addresses
> this. Is it OK (with the name of changelog file adjusted)?

Looks ok to me.