From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8867 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2010 18:24:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8856 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2010 18:24:09 -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; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:24:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 25823 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2010 18:24:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 Dec 2010 18:24:01 -0000 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Yao Qi Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch, arm] Consistent display of registers in corefile Message-ID: <20101219182358.GA7961@caradoc.them.org> References: <4D022D1A.7030701@codesourcery.com> <201012101443.oBAEhFiT023638@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20101213025718.GA4731@caradoc.them.org> <4D05EEC0.7030200@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D05EEC0.7030200@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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/msg00358.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 06:00:32PM +0800, Yao Qi wrote: > On 12/13/2010 10:57 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > 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. > > > > In this new patch, 'type="uint32"' is added for registers from r0 to r12 > except r11. r11 is 'type="data_ptr"'. features/arm*.c files are > regenerated by Makefile. Regression tested along with the other patch > arm_fps_group.patch on armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi, "corefile restored > general registers" failure in gdb.base/gcore.exp goes away. Is it OK > for GDB mainline? Please use uint32 for r11 also. It's sometimes the frame pointer, but that's not required and it may have any arbitrary data in it. Otherwise OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery