From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9088 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 21:31:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 9077 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 21:31:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 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; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:31:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 15776 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2010 21:31:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Dec 2010 21:31:24 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gdb: bfin: new port Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Mike Frysinger , toolchain-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, Jie Zhang References: <1291886957-12003-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <1292359346-22447-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1292359346-22447-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012142131.22802.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: 2010-12/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 14 December 2010 20:42:26, Mike Frysinger wrote: > + /* Pseudo Registers */ > + BFIN_PC_REGNUM, > + BFIN_CC_REGNUM, > + BFIN_TEXT_ADDR, /* Address of .text section. */ > + BFIN_TEXT_END_ADDR, /* Address of the end of .text section. */ > + BFIN_DATA_ADDR, /* Address of .data section. */ > + > + BFIN_FDPIC_EXEC_REGNUM, > + BFIN_FDPIC_INTERP_REGNUM, > + I thought these (text_addr ... fdpic*) would be removed? Can you explain why are the PC and CC registers pseudo registers, but supported as being raw registers anyway? Couldn't gdb compute them itself from the other registers, with gdb's pseudo register support (gdbarch_pseudo_register_read|write)? googling I found you mentioning that the "CC pseudo register can be deduced from the ASTAT register", though further googling doesn't find any mention of what ASTAT is. I'm sure there's a good reason, I'm probably just missing a comment somewhere. -- Pedro Alves