Re: [RFA/RFC] mips tracepoint: fix Bug 12013

Kevin Buettner
2010-12-21T15:42:58Z

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:15:59 +0800
Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> 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