Re: [patch] Add PS_REGNUM.

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 03:25:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> This patch just fills in a gap in the current *_REGNUMs by adding 
>> PS_REGNUM.  Unlike the others.  This one really does allow -1 as the 
>> default value.
>> 
>> (FP_REGNUM et.al. require real values as there is code around that, 
>> unfortunatly, depends on there being a real FP register et.al.  ulgh).
>> 
>> committed,
>> Andrew
> 
> 
> What benefit does this have?  PC_REGNUM I can understand.  Even
> SP_REGNUM.  But it's not like PS_REGNUM has any meaning to common
> code...

I think it is the other way round.  PS_REGNUM is the only one being used 
correctly - when >=0, std-regs.c (new file) maps $ps onto a 
hardware/pseudo register.  Cf the GDB manual.

On the other hand FP_REGNUM, PC_REGNUM and SP_REGNUM that are being used 
``incorrectly''(1).  They have no meaning outside of std-regs.c yet are 
used throughout GDB.

enjoy,
Andrew

(1) I'm rewriting history here.  There was a time when the FP_REGNUM was 
both a hardware register and the frame-base.