From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1400 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2002 16:26:03 -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 1364 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2002 16:25:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2002 16:25:48 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611703E39; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:25:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DDBB787.90007@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:26:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] FRAME_FP -> read_fp References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00505.txt.bz2 > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> This patch updates the doco so that it better reflects GDB's current >> implementation of create_new_frame(). >> >> ok? > > > Ahm, what does this mean, exactly, "read_fp in the machine description"? > Isn't read_fp a function? If so, how can it be present ``in the machine > description''? regcache.c contains: CORE_ADDR read_fp (void) { return TARGET_READ_FP (); } and TARGET_READ_FP() is part of the machine description (a.k.a. architecture vector). > In case it isn't clear, I refer to this text: > > +@code{read_fp} in the machine description has no meaning The full text is: > @findex create_new_frame > @vindex read_fp > @code{read_fp} in the machine description has no meaning to the > machine-independent part of @value{GDBN}, except that it is used when > setting up a new frame from scratch, as follows: > > @smallexample > create_new_frame (read_fp (), read_pc ())); > @end smallexample And the only change I made was to update things to refer to read_fp() instead of FRAME_FP(). The description is correct. As far as the machine independant code is concerned, read_fp() returns a magic number. The text then goes on to mention: > @cindex frame pointer register > Other than that, all the meaning imparted to @code{FP_REGNUM} is > imparted by the machine-dependent code. So, @code{FP_REGNUM} can have > any value that is convenient for the code that creates new frames. > (@code{create_new_frame} calls @code{INIT_EXTRA_FRAME_INFO} if it is > defined; that is where you should use the @code{FP_REGNUM} value, if > your frames are nonstandard.) Hmm, I guess this could do with a similar s/FP_REGNUM/read_fp/ transformation? Andrew