From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14036-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 6085 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2002 18:54:19 -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 6053 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 18:54:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 18:54:18 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E1C693CBF; Sun,  7 Apr 2002 14:54:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3CB095CA.6090405@cygnus.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:54:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch] Add PS_REGNUM.
References: <3CAF59CA.1060304@cygnus.com> <20020407143417.A26612@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2

> 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.