From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12321-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11417 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2002 22:48:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11286 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2002 22:48:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2002 22:48:03 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.231.12])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07108;
	Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:48:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3C572514.91F6C556@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:48:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2smp i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] legacy_[read/write]_register_gen
References: <200201290102.g0T12Uk24471@reddwarf.cygnus.com> <3C5614AF.4050809@cygnus.com> <3C56EC48.8ACAC16B@redhat.com> <3C56F660.5040902@cygnus.com> <3C56F701.8869B52F@redhat.com> <3C571438.2070605@cygnus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00766.txt.bz2

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > That should be implemented as:
> >>
> >> my_register_read (int regnum, ...)
> >> {
> >> if (regnum == MY_MIRROR_REGNUM)
> >> regcache_read (MY_REAL_REGNUM, buf)
> >> else
> >> regcache_read (regnum, buf);
> >> }
> >>
> >> GDB no longer needs to have duplicated register values in the regcache.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I have figured out why the change is needed.  You can end up
> >> with ``real'' registers in the [NUM_REGS .. NUM_REGS+NUM_PSEUDO_REGS)
> >> range.  This happens (at present still theory) when a register that
> >> isn't in the G packet is fetched.
> >
> >
> > Shall I check it in?
> 
> Yes.  Thanks!
> 
> Andrew

Committed.