From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1835 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2010 15:42:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 1523 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2010 15:42:57 -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 Dec 2010 15:42:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBLFgnPr017860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:50 -0500 Received: from mesquite.lan ([10.3.113.8]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oBLFgnaF000878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:42:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:42:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Hui Zhu , Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] mips tracepoint: fix Bug 12013 Message-ID: <20101221084248.1c922955@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <201012191039.oBJAdNBN010655@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:15:59 +0800 Hui Zhu wrote: > > It is a common trick to return an empty register name for a (raw) > > register to hide the register from the user. __So I don't think this > > diff is ok, since the goal obviously is to hide the raw registers in > > mips in favour of the pseudo registers. > > Could you tell me what this hide for? I didn't find who get some > advantage form this part? I agree with Mark. We do not want to expose the MIPS raw registers directly to the user. It is possible to debug a 64-bit device using a 32-bit programming model. In such instances, the raw registers are configured to be 64-bits wide, while the pseudo registers are configured to be 32-bits wide. The registers that the user sees - the pseudo registers - match the user's expectations given the programming model being used. Your patch exposes the raw registers in such a way that errant code (within GDB) could present the user with an inconsistent view of the registers. This, in my opinion, is not desirable. Please revert your patch and, in the future, wait until a consensus is achieved before comitting your work. Kevin