From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11915 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2002 15:49:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11882 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2002 15:49:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jan 2002 15:49:34 -0000 Received: from telocity.telocity.com (taarna.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.102]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA09778; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:49:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C4D88F8.75EE@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:49:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com CC: fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] "info registers" is misleading References: <200201221027.KAA28112@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00693.txt.bz2 Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > msnyder@redhat.com said: > > This is an old old issue. The frame pointer register is special. > > Info registers does not show the actual value of the fp register -- it > > shows the virtual frame pointer (the address of the function's stack > > frame). Usually it's the same value -- unles you're in a frameless > > function (ie. one that does not use the frame pointer register). > > > Now that we have pseudo-registers, we've talked about adding a > > pseudo-frame-pointer register and using it for FP_REGNUM, so that the > > "real" frame pointer register can always display its real value. > > Indeed. It isn't even confined to Thumb code. It isn't even confined to ARM code. It's true for all architectures.