From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-76925-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 13224 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2010 02:57:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 13215 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Dec 2010 02:57:35 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
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; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 02:57:31 +0000
Received: (qmail 27864 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2010 02:57:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 13 Dec 2010 02:57:29 -0000
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 02:57:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch, arm] Consistent display of registers in corefile
Message-ID: <20101213025718.GA4731@caradoc.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>,	yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <4D022D1A.7030701@codesourcery.com> <201012101443.oBAEhFiT023638@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201012101443.oBAEhFiT023638@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:43:15PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> I would suspect that the proper thing to do would be to align the
> tdesc with the code instead of the other way around.  The arm-core.xml
> file seems to underspecify things by omitting the type=xxx clause on
> many registers.  Whoever wrote arm_register_type() at least had to
> make a conscious decision about the signedness of the type used for
> the general purpose registers.

Yeah, I agree.  It was probably my mistake.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery