From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10173 invoked by alias); 18 May 2002 21:24:35 -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 10166 invoked from network); 18 May 2002 21:24:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 May 2002 21:24:35 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53183E98; Sat, 18 May 2002 17:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CE6C699.7040706@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 14:24:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020518 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] builtin-regs buglet References: <200205150851.JAA18699@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00796.txt.bz2 > > You said it... > > The size of this, plus some of the attendant changes elsewhere, makes me > wonder whether we should create a separate branch -- this could be quite > destabilizing, particularly for some of the target connections that use > the revised ARM code. Yes. Could use the regbuf branch or create your own. I can test against arm-sim and I could do with an extra target to test against. As for the change, I suspect there are two steps: make everything a pseudo (probably the bit to have on the branch?); then add lots more to the raw/pseudo registers. thoughts? Andrew