Re: PATCH: Support x86 pseudo registers

Pedro Alves
2010-03-12T16:31:42Z

On Friday 12 March 2010 16:04:45, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > So, should that sentence of the manual be relaxed?
>
> 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?

Yes. That's what the code does too, hence this issue.

E.g., on archs with a real "$fp" register, in -fomit-frame-pointer
functions, $fp evals to the contents of the reg (which can
be anything), while on other archs it prints the unwinder's
notion of frame base.

> Anyway, are there any such conflicts in the current codebase?

There was one just now. :-)

> > I guess this would be a good place to at least mention the x86 $sp
> > is always $esp or $rsp.
>
> Yes, I think so.

--
Pedro Alves