[patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andrew Volkov]

Hi,

Attached is a patch to fix literal regnumbers in switches to appropriate
macros. 

Andrey Volkov

2002-05-15  Andrey Volkov  <avolkov@sources.redhat.com>

	* gdb/h8300-tdep.c: Fix literal regnumbers to REGNUMS.
	* sim/h8300/compile.c: Ditto.
	* sim/h8300/compile.c: Fix instruction and cycles counting

Index: gdb/h8300-tdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/h8300-tdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -u -c -p -r1.7 h8300-tdep.c
*** gdb/h8300-tdep.c	16 Mar 2001 22:34:45 -0000	1.7
--- gdb/h8300-tdep.c	15 May 2002 11:13:30 -0000
*************** _initialize_h8300m (void)
*** 828,841 ****
  void
  h8300_print_register_hook (int regno)
  {
!   if (regno == 8)
      {
        /* CCR register */
        int C, Z, N, V;
!       unsigned char b[4];
        unsigned char l;
        read_relative_register_raw_bytes (regno, b);
!       l = b[REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE (8) - 1];
        printf_unfiltered ("\t");
        printf_unfiltered ("I-%d - ", (l & 0x80) != 0);
        printf_unfiltered ("H-%d - ", (l & 0x20) != 0);
--- 828,841 ----
  void
  h8300_print_register_hook (int regno)
  {
!   if (regno == CCR_REGNUM)
      {
        /* CCR register */
        int C, Z, N, V;
!       unsigned char b[REGISTER_SIZE];
        unsigned char l;
        read_relative_register_raw_bytes (regno, b);
!       l = b[REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE (CCR_REGNUM) - 1];
        printf_unfiltered ("\t");
        printf_unfiltered ("I-%d - ", (l & 0x80) != 0);
        printf_unfiltered ("H-%d - ", (l & 0x20) != 0);
Index: sim/h8300/compile.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/sim/h8300/compile.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -u -c -p -r1.8 compile.c
*** sim/h8300/compile.c	20 Dec 2001 17:36:23 -0000	1.8
--- sim/h8300/compile.c	15 May 2002 11:13:31 -0000
*************** static int memory_size;
*** 111,120 ****
  static int
  get_now ()
  {
! #ifndef WIN32
!   return time (0);
! #endif
!   return 0;
  }
  
  static int
--- 111,117 ----
  static int
  get_now ()
  {
!   return time (0);	//WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why not using it?
  }
  
  static int
*************** lvalue (x, rn)
*** 155,161 ****
        return X (OP_MEM, SP);
  
      default:
!       abort ();
      }
  }
  
--- 152,158 ----
        return X (OP_MEM, SP);
  
      default:
!       abort (); //?? May be something more usefull?
      }
  }
  
*************** fetch (arg, n)
*** 608,614 ****
        return t;
  
      default:
!       abort ();
  
      }
  }
--- 605,611 ----
        return t;
  
      default:
!       abort (); //?? May be something more usefull?
  
      }
  }
*************** sim_resume (sd, step, siggnal)
*** 997,1004 ****
  
  #endif
  
!       cycles += code->cycles;
!       insts++;
        switch (code->opcode)
  	{
  	case 0:
--- 994,1005 ----
  
  #endif
  
!       if (code->opcode)
!        {
!         cycles += code->cycles;
!         insts++;
!        }
! 
        switch (code->opcode)
  	{
  	case 0:
*************** sim_fetch_register (sd, rn, buf, length)
*** 1860,1869 ****
      {
      default:
        abort ();
!     case 8:
        v = cpu.ccr;
        break;
!     case 9:
        v = cpu.pc;
        break;
      case R0_REGNUM:
--- 1861,1870 ----
      {
      default:
        abort ();
!     case CCR_REGNUM:
        v = cpu.ccr;
        break;
!     case PC_REGNUM:
        v = cpu.pc;
        break;
      case R0_REGNUM:
*************** sim_fetch_register (sd, rn, buf, length)
*** 1876,1890 ****
      case R7_REGNUM:
        v = cpu.regs[rn];
        break;
!     case 10:
        v = cpu.cycles;
        longreg = 1;
        break;
!     case 11:
        v = cpu.ticks;
        longreg = 1;
        break;
!     case 12:
        v = cpu.insts;
        longreg = 1;
        break;
--- 1877,1891 ----
      case R7_REGNUM:
        v = cpu.regs[rn];
        break;
!     case CYCLE_REGNUM:
        v = cpu.cycles;
        longreg = 1;
        break;
!     case TICK_REGNUM:
        v = cpu.ticks;
        longreg = 1;
        break;
!     case INST_REGNUM:
        v = cpu.insts;
        longreg = 1;
        break;

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Richard Earnshaw]

!   return time (0);	//WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why not using it?

C++ style comments are not legal ANSI C.

R.

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andreas Schwab]

Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:

|> !   return time (0);	//WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why not using it?
|> 
|> C++ style comments are not legal ANSI C.

Hmm, which ANSI C do you mean?  C++ style comments are surely valid in
ANSI C as we know it today.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Richard Earnshaw]

> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> 
> |> !   return time (0);	//WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why not using it?
> |> 
> |> C++ style comments are not legal ANSI C.
> 
> Hmm, which ANSI C do you mean?  C++ style comments are surely valid in
> ANSI C as we know it today.
> 
> Andreas.
> 

c89, the original (which, to the best of my knowledge is the standard GDB 
is coded to).  C++ style comments didn't become legal in C until c99.

R.

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andreas Schwab]

Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:

|> > Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
|> > 
|> > |> !   return time (0);	//WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why not using it?
|> > |> 
|> > |> C++ style comments are not legal ANSI C.
|> > 
|> > Hmm, which ANSI C do you mean?  C++ style comments are surely valid in
|> > ANSI C as we know it today.
|> > 
|> > Andreas.
|> > 
|> 
|> c89, the original (which, to the best of my knowledge is the standard GDB 
|> is coded to).  C++ style comments didn't become legal in C until c99.

I know, but you should say that explicitly.  Your original statement is
not correct in this form.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Richard Earnshaw]

> |> > Hmm, which ANSI C do you mean?  C++ style comments are surely valid in
> |> > ANSI C as we know it today.
> |> 
> |> c89, the original (which, to the best of my knowledge is the standard GDB 
> |> is coded to).  C++ style comments didn't become legal in C until c99.
> 
> I know, but you should say that explicitly.  Your original statement is
> not correct in this form.

I dispute that, in the sense that since I didn't explicitly mention a 
version I could have been talking about any sub-set up to or including the 
entire set.

Further, it's general to talk about 'ISO' when referring to c99.  I said 
'ANSI', which is usually taken to refer to the original standard.

And anyway, the important point here is that GDB is not being coded to c99.

R.

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andreas Schwab]

Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:

|> Further, it's general to talk about 'ISO' when referring to c99.  I said 
|> 'ANSI', which is usually taken to refer to the original standard.

I'm pretty sure that ANSI has adopted C99 too.  And C89 (well, C90
actually) was an ISO standard as well.

|> And anyway, the important point here is that GDB is not being coded to c99.

No sweat.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andrew Cagney]

> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> 
> |> Further, it's general to talk about 'ISO' when referring to c99.  I said 
> |> 'ANSI', which is usually taken to refer to the original standard.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that ANSI has adopted C99 too.  And C89 (well, C90
> actually) was an ISO standard as well.

GDB requires ISO C, not ANSI C :-)
http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/onlinedocs/gdbint_13.html#SEC102

(Yes I need to fix the ``ISO-C'' typo, clarify which ISO C standard (in 
case there are two), and yes ISO simply adopted the ANSI standard :-)

Any way, the MINIX compiler doesn't accept C++ style comments so I don't 
think it can be used....  Hmmm, should see if GDB compiles on that 
platform :-^

> |> And anyway, the important point here is that GDB is not being coded to c99.
> 
> No sweat.

I think the important thing is to pressure GCC and BINUTILS to drop the 
K&R C requirement :-)

enjoy,
Andrew

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Richard Earnshaw]

> > Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> > 
> > |> Further, it's general to talk about 'ISO' when referring to c99.  I said 
> > |> 'ANSI', which is usually taken to refer to the original standard.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure that ANSI has adopted C99 too.  And C89 (well, C90
> > actually) was an ISO standard as well.
> 
> GDB requires ISO C, not ANSI C :-)
> http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/onlinedocs/gdbint_13.html#SEC102

I just built gdb on arm-netbsdelf with -std=c89 -Werror added to the build 
options.  Apart from needing to add -Wno-trigraphs to compile solib-svr4.c 
('cos it includes elf/mips.h, which has '???' in coments), everything 
worked fine.

Maybe we should work towards adding the 'std' option on builds.  It should 
help to clear out any accidental use of GCC-isms.

R.

Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andrew Cagney]

> Maybe we should work towards adding the 'std' option on builds.  It should 
> help to clear out any accidental use of GCC-isms.

Sound good.  (Probably time to stomp out another selected warning as well.)

Andrew

RE: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andrew Volkov]

Andreas, 

I think difference of c99 and ANSI is offtopic here. 
Are you have any suggestions about patch?

Andrey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:schwab@suse.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:21 PM
> To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to 
> REGNUM macros
> 
> 
> Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> 
> |> Further, it's general to talk about 'ISO' when referring 
> to c99.  I said 
> |> 'ANSI', which is usually taken to refer to the original standard.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that ANSI has adopted C99 too.  And C89 (well, C90
> actually) was an ISO standard as well.
> 
> |> And anyway, the important point here is that GDB is not 
> being coded to c99.
> 
> No sweat.
> 
> Andreas.
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
> SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
> Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
> "And now for something completely different."
> 

RE: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros

[Andrew Volkov]

Corrected
 
 Andrey
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Earnshaw [mailto:rearnsha@arm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:04 PM
> > To: Andrew Volkov
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
> > Subject: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to 
> REGNUM macros
> > 
> > 
> > !   return time (0);	//WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why 
> > not using it?
> > C++ style comments are not legal ANSI C.
> > 
> > R.
> > 
> >
> 

Index: gdb/h8300-tdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/h8300-tdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -u -c -p -r1.7 h8300-tdep.c
*** h8300-tdep.c	16 Mar 2001 22:34:45 -0000	1.7
--- h8300-tdep.c	15 May 2002 12:45:44 -0000
*************** _initialize_h8300m (void)
*** 828,841 ****
  void
  h8300_print_register_hook (int regno)
  {
!   if (regno == 8)
      {
        /* CCR register */
        int C, Z, N, V;
!       unsigned char b[4];
        unsigned char l;
        read_relative_register_raw_bytes (regno, b);
!       l = b[REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE (8) - 1];
        printf_unfiltered ("\t");
        printf_unfiltered ("I-%d - ", (l & 0x80) != 0);
        printf_unfiltered ("H-%d - ", (l & 0x20) != 0);
--- 828,841 ----
  void
  h8300_print_register_hook (int regno)
  {
!   if (regno == CCR_REGNUM)
      {
        /* CCR register */
        int C, Z, N, V;
!       unsigned char b[REGISTER_SIZE];
        unsigned char l;
        read_relative_register_raw_bytes (regno, b);
!       l = b[REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE (CCR_REGNUM) - 1];
        printf_unfiltered ("\t");
        printf_unfiltered ("I-%d - ", (l & 0x80) != 0);
        printf_unfiltered ("H-%d - ", (l & 0x20) != 0);
Index: sim/h8300/compile.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/sim/h8300/compile.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 compile.c
--- h8300/compile.c	20 Dec 2001 17:36:23 -0000	1.8
+++ h8300/compile.c	15 May 2002 12:41:48 -0000
@@ -111,10 +111,7 @@
 static int
 get_now ()
 {
-#ifndef WIN32
-  return time (0);
-#endif
-  return 0;
+  return time (0);	/* WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why not using it?
*/
 }
 
 static int
@@ -155,7 +152,7 @@
       return X (OP_MEM, SP);
 
     default:
-      abort ();
+      abort (); /* ?? May be something more usefull? */
     }
 }
 
@@ -608,7 +605,7 @@
       return t;
 
     default:
-      abort ();
+      abort (); /* ?? May be something more usefull? */
 
     }
 }
@@ -997,8 +994,12 @@
 
 #endif
 
-      cycles += code->cycles;
-      insts++;
+      if (code->opcode)
+       {
+        cycles += code->cycles;
+        insts++;
+       }
+
       switch (code->opcode)
 	{
 	case 0:
@@ -1860,10 +1861,10 @@
     {
     default:
       abort ();
-    case 8:
+    case CCR_REGNUM:
       v = cpu.ccr;
       break;
-    case 9:
+    case PC_REGNUM:
       v = cpu.pc;
       break;
     case R0_REGNUM:
@@ -1876,15 +1877,15 @@
     case R7_REGNUM:
       v = cpu.regs[rn];
       break;
-    case 10:
+    case CYCLE_REGNUM:
       v = cpu.cycles;
       longreg = 1;
       break;
-    case 11:
+    case TICK_REGNUM:
       v = cpu.ticks;
       longreg = 1;
       break;
-    case 12:
+    case INST_REGNUM:
       v = cpu.insts;
       longreg = 1;
       break;