From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28087 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 28071 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2010 16:31:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:31:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 30007 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2010 16:31:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 Mar 2010 16:31:35 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: PATCH: Support x86 pseudo registers Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: hjl.tools@gmail.com, msnyder@vmware.com References: <20100301170152.GA20106@intel.com> <201003121526.37646.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83iq9134rm.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83iq9134rm.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003121631.33499.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00460.txt.bz2 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