From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29179 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2002 17:26:40 -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 29169 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2002 17:26:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ns2.uk.superh.com) (193.128.105.170) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2002 17:26:39 -0000 Received: from sh-uk-ex01.uk.w2k.superh.com (sh-uk-ex01 [192.168.16.17]) by ns2.uk.superh.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6HHJtK28623; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:19:55 +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); Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:25:45 +0100 Message-ID: <3D35A89B.EE1EABC3@superh.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:30:00 -0000 From: Joern Rennecke Organization: SuperH UK Ltd. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney 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> <3D2EEE6B.9060708@ges.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2002 17:25:45.0717 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC21DA50:01C22DB6] X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00366.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > 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. MIPS and RS6000 use varying register numbers for hardware registers with identical name and function. I suppose that is due to historical accident? On the SH, it makes sense to consider the floating point register start number as variable; however, there are a lot more register numbers that are constant: the privileged mode registers of the SH1..SH4 are not replicated in the SH5; the SH5 has other registers of its own for privileged mode. All the sh-dsp specific register are, well, sh-dsp specific, and hence only the sh-dsp numbering applies. -- -------------------------- SuperH 2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ T:+44 1454 462330