From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23406 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2010 03:19:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 23398 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Dec 2010 03:19:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:19:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27832BABA9; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fxVrlvjfZJfR; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A152BAB2B; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8AC1D1457B3; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 04:18:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Richard Earnshaw , Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Implement gdbarch hook user_register_name on ARM Message-ID: <20101223031853.GM2596@adacore.com> References: <1293039320.11190.9.camel@e102346-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201012222205.oBMM5m4g025676@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201012222205.oBMM5m4g025676@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.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/msg00419.txt.bz2 > However, there is no defined way to *query* that value. Therefore, > my understanding is that the MI frontends typically query the value > of the standard "fp" register to retrieve this value. If an architecture > back-end now goes and redefines what "fp" stands for, this will break > this MI frontend convention ... I am not sure I understand the problem. Could we use "get_frame_base" instead? -- Joel