From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31956 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2010 20:50:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 31947 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2010 20:50:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:50:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8LKo6kk004078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:50:06 -0400 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-43.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.43]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8LKo5Gk003842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:50:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:49:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, V850] Add support for V850E2 and V850E2V3 Message-ID: <20100921135005.65fff6b6@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <371569CBCFB2E745B891DBB88B2DFDDD19E5643B64@KCINPUNHJCMS01.kpit.com> References: <371569CBCFB2E745B891DBB88B2DFDDD19E5643B64@KCINPUNHJCMS01.kpit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:09:14 +0530 Rathish C wrote: > diff -upNr gdb-7.2.50-orig/gdb/v850-tdep.c gdb-7.2.50-modified/src/gdb/v850-tdep.c > --- gdb-7.2.50-orig/gdb/v850-tdep.c 2010-09-10 04:34:46.000000000 +0530 > +++ gdb-7.2.50-modified/gdb/v850-tdep.c 2010-09-18 19:06:34.000000000 +0530 > @@ -100,8 +100,100 @@ enum > E_R61_REGNUM, > E_R62_REGNUM, > E_R63_REGNUM, > - E_R64_REGNUM, E_PC_REGNUM = E_R64_REGNUM, > + > + /* mpu0 system registers */ > + E_R64_REGNUM, [...] > + /* pc etc. */ > + E_R148_REGNUM, E_PC_REGNUM = E_R148_REGNUM, > + E_R149_REGNUM, Why are you changing the register number for E_PC_REGNUM? I assume you've already changed gcc so that the dwarf2 return address column ends up being this new number. Won't this make it impossible to use an old compiler with a new debugger and vice versa? > @@ -142,14 +234,32 @@ static const char * > v850_register_name (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, int regnum) > { > static const char *v850_reg_names[] = > - { "r0", "r1", "r2", "r3", "r4", "r5", "r6", "r7", > - "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11", "r12", "r13", "r14", "r15", > - "r16", "r17", "r18", "r19", "r20", "r21", "r22", "r23", > + { > + "r0", "r1", "r2", "r3", "r4", "r5", "r6", "r7", > + "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11", "r12", "r13", "r14", "r15", > + "r16", "r17", "r18", "r19", "r20", "r21", "r22", "r23", > "r24", "r25", "r26", "r27", "r28", "r29", "r30", "r31", > + > "eipc", "eipsw", "fepc", "fepsw", "ecr", "psw", "sr6", "sr7", > "sr8", "sr9", "sr10", "sr11", "sr12", "sr13", "sr14", "sr15", > "sr16", "sr17", "sr18", "sr19", "sr20", "sr21", "sr22", "sr23", > "sr24", "sr25", "sr26", "sr27", "sr28", "sr29", "sr30", "sr31", > + > + "sr32", "sr33", "sr34", "sr35", "sr36", "sr37", "sr38", "sr39", > + "sr40", "sr41", "sr42", "sr43", "sr44", "sr45", "sr46", "sr47", > + "sr48", "sr49", "sr50", "sr51", "sr52", "sr53", "sr54", "sr55", > + "sr56", "sr57", "sr58", "sr59", > + > + "sr60", "sr61", "sr62", "sr63", "sr64", "sr65", "sr66", "sr67", > + "sr68", "sr69", "sr70", "sr71", "sr72", "sr73", "sr74", "sr75", > + "sr76", "sr77", "sr78", "sr79", "sr80", "sr81", "sr82", "sr83", > + "sr84", "sr85", "sr86", "sr87", > + > + "sr88", "sr89", "sr90", "sr91", "sr92", "sr93", "sr94", "sr95", > + "sr96", "sr97", "sr98", "sr99", "sr100", "sr101", "sr102", "sr103", > + "sr104", "sr105", "sr106", "sr107", "sr108", "sr109", "sr110", "sr111", > + "sr112", "sr113", "sr114", "sr115", > + Does the original v850 really have all of these new registers? (The v850 manual that I looked at does not show them...) Kevin