From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21427 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2010 17:56:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 21416 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Dec 2010 17:56:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com (HELO mtagate3.uk.ibm.com) (194.196.100.163) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:56:15 +0000 Received: from d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.233]) by mtagate3.uk.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oBNHuCnj012696 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:56:12 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oBNHuEOP3039300 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:56:14 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oBNHuCpY011038 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:56:12 -0700 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id oBNHuAjh011029; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:56:10 -0700 Message-Id: <201012231756.oBNHuAjh011029@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:56:10 +0100 Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Implement gdbarch hook user_register_name on ARM To: yao@codesourcery.com (Yao Qi) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:37:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <4D12C3F4.8080301@codesourcery.com> from "Yao Qi" at Dec 23, 2010 11:37:24 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00436.txt.bz2 Yao Qi wrote: > On 12/23/2010 06:02 AM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Huh, I didn't even see this, I was refering to this line: > > { "fp", 11 }, > > in arm_register_aliases. As long as this line is there, changes to > > set_gdbarch_deprecated_fp_regnum probably don't matter as this isn't > > even evaluated, since "fp" is just treated as a user register instead > > of a standard register. > > > Ulrich, > changes to set_gdbarch_deprecated_fp_regnum matters here. > > There are two "fp", "pc" and "sp" in user registers. The first one is > added from builtin_user_regs (fp, pc, sp, ps) in user_regs_init, and the > second one is added from `arm_register_aliases' in our case. The first > one is always used, so these three in arm_register_aliases are redundant. I see. I had thought the calls in arm_register_aliases would override the standard registers, but it looks like you're right, they don't. > { "fp", 11 }, > { "sp", 13 }, > { "pc", 15 }, > > How about this patch to remove them? If they don't actually take effect, I agree it is better to remove them. However, I'd prefer to see some comment in the code explaining why these names are not (and should not be) added as aliases ... Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com