Re: PATCH: Support x86 pseudo registers

Pedro Alves
2010-03-12T18:20:21Z

On Friday 12 March 2010 18:13:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:30:04 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
> > Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
> > hjl.tools@gmail.com, msnyder@vmware.com
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 06:04:45PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Maybe, but frankly I don't really understand what it says, exactly.
> > > Does it mean that if the name does clash with the architecture, the
> > > architecture's meaning is used?
> >
> > I think that's what was intended.
>
> Then maybe we should say when there's conflict, the generic name
> _might_ be unavailable.
>

We could also stick to defaulting to the architecture meaning, and
always provide $_pc, $_sp, $_fp, $_ps registers that always map to
the generic versions. That way, when there's a conflict,
there's always an escape route.

--
Pedro Alves