From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8849 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2010 21:09:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 8840 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2010 21:09:05 -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 21:09:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8LL8xXF022736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:08:59 -0400 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-43.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.43]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8LL8w7n019904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:08:59 -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: <20100921140858.08e18af4@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <20100921135005.65fff6b6@mesquite.lan> References: <371569CBCFB2E745B891DBB88B2DFDDD19E5643B64@KCINPUNHJCMS01.kpit.com> <20100921135005.65fff6b6@mesquite.lan> 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/msg00359.txt.bz2 On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:50:05 -0700 Kevin Buettner wrote: > > - 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? Another issue with moving E_PC_REGNUM is that existing debugging stubs use the old value. In my opinion, you should be leaving the register order and names the same for the existing v850 architectures. Kevin