From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5807 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2002 22:01:58 -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 5790 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2002 22:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uk.superh.com) (193.128.105.170) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2002 22:01:54 -0000 Received: from sh-uk-ex01.uk.w2k.superh.com (sh-uk-ex01 [192.168.16.17]) by uk.superh.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g61Ltv518577; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 22:55:57 +0100 (BST) Received: from superh.com ([192.168.17.40]) by sh-uk-ex01.uk.w2k.superh.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 1 Jul 2002 23:00:59 +0100 Message-ID: <3D20D12F.6AB9E865@superh.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 15:01:00 -0000 From: Joern Rennecke Organization: SuperH UK Ltd. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elena Zannoni CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Unreviewed patches References: <3D205F19.1B99290F@superh.com> <15648.31077.572892.886182@localhost.redhat.com> <3D208CF1.AB7AC45A@superh.com> <15648.51312.63195.689336@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2002 22:00:59.0334 (UTC) FILETIME=[C867D660:01C2214A] X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 Elena Zannoni wrote: > OK, I see what you are saying, but I don't think that removing the overlaps > from the gdb<->sim interface necessarily forces you to remove the overlaps > from inside the simulator. You have a point here. The translation is quite arbitrary. > It just cleans up the sim_fetch_register and sim_store_register code. It also changes the interface. > I am not sure I understand your claim about compatibility. You mean > older gdb's with new sims? That cannot happen. Or you mean the layout Older gdb's with new sims, or older sims with new gdb's. Why should it be safe to have different register numbers in the interface to the same simulator of a slightly different vintage, yet unsafe to have different meanings for the same register numbers in the sh vs. sh64 simulator? > > > I think the changes below depend on the cgen patches being accepted first. > > > > They have. > > > > I don't see any replies to your message to the cgen/gdb-patches lists. Still, when you look at ChangeLog and cpu/{sh64-compact.cpu,sh64-media.cpu}, you'll see that Ben Elliston has applied my patch. -- -------------------------- SuperH 2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ T:+44 1454 462330