From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19570 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2002 14:57:55 -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 19559 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2002 14:57:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2002 14:57:51 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE5C3D47; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:57:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D2EEE6B.9060708@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:23:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joern Rennecke Cc: Elena Zannoni , 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> <3D20D12F.6AB9E865@superh.com> <15649.65211.660582.965251@localhost.redhat.com> <3D236046.4FAE0419@superh.com> <15662.14806.918730.224362@localhost.redhat.com> <3D2EC4B3.FDDB3D47@superh.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 > > I think the stashing of constants into the tdep structure is basically > wrong. You separate the register names arrays from the literals > that describe their positions, and you replicate the literals > up to four times. The tdep structure and the sh_gdbarch_init > function are so large that you have lost track of the things that > really belong in tdep, like sh_show_regs, skip_prologue_hard_way, > and do_pseudo_register. If you look at other gdb ports, you'll > see that they put only variable stuff in tdep, and use enums > for constants. The sh gdb register naming scheme also doesn't > scale well, the names are again duplicated multiple times. Can i suggest comparing the SH with the MIPS or RS6000. Andrew