From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-77188-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 15453 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2010 09:29:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 15441 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Dec 2010 09:29:02 -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 sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:28:57 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBN9RBQw032053;	Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:27:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id oBN9R86R013591;	Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:27:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:08:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201012230927.oBN9R86R013591@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: brobecker@adacore.com
CC: uweigand@de.ibm.com, rearnsha@arm.com, yao@codesourcery.com,        gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20101223031853.GM2596@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker	on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:18:53 +0400)
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Implement gdbarch hook user_register_name on ARM
References: <1293039320.11190.9.camel@e102346-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201012222205.oBMM5m4g025676@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <20101223031853.GM2596@adacore.com>
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/msg00433.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:18:53 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> > 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?

As far as I know, that is exactly what happens when you *don't* set
deprecated_fp_regnum, and you don't have a "hard" frame pointer
register explicitly named "fp".

See std-reg.c:value_of_builtin_frame_fp_reg().

Really, if arm can get away with not setting deprecated_fp_regnum(),
we should go for it.