From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19582 invoked by alias); 7 May 2002 00:17:48 -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 19575 invoked from network); 7 May 2002 00:17:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2002 00:17:47 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C563D0A; Mon, 6 May 2002 20:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CD71D30.7000506@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 17:17:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020429 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] default REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE and REGISTER_RAW_SIZE toregister_size References: <3CD5EA35.9020104@cygnus.com> <3CD71654.7904493A@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00139.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> For most architectures. The relationship: >> >> REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE(N) >> == REGISTER_RAW_SIZE(N) >> == TYPE_LENGTH(REGISTER_VIRTUAL_TYPE(N) >> >> (the exception is the @$(*&@(^$*&^!@ MIPS ...). > > > Surely this is also true for x87 regs? Nope! The i386 register is 80 bits. When pushed on the stack, extra space is reserved to make it 4 byte aligned (96 bit) but the extra two bytes at the end don't get used. >> Given this, the >> attached patch changes the architecture vector so that it defaults both >> to the register's type size. >> >> I think this is the logical conclusion to MichaelS's earlier patch that >> provided defaults to each. >> >> Thoughts? I'll look to commit it in a week. > > > If I understand it, it won't affect any target that explicitly > sets these methods -- in which case I agree with the change. Yes, it isn't ment to affect existing targets. Up until now you were required to set the methods as otherwize GDB wouldn't build/run. thanks for the comments, Andrew