From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1278 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2003 19:06:53 -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 1192 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2003 19:06:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2003 19:06:51 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF142B63; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 15:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EE38949.7040504@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 19:06:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder , Kris Warkentin , Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [regcache] raw vs. cooked... References: <3EE13867.1E530DE9@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 > Andrew, > > I suspect the test below is not valid for pseudo-registers, since they > may not have a location in the reg cache at all. Anyway, the change > makes sh4 work again. The check's valid. See the thread: assertion failure in regcache.c http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-05/msg00289.html Kris, Elena, did a fix get committed? Andrew > Index: regcache.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/regcache.c,v > retrieving revision 1.82 > diff -p -r1.82 regcache.c > *** regcache.c 17 May 2003 05:59:58 -0000 1.82 > --- regcache.c 7 Jun 2003 00:55:07 -0000 > *************** init_regcache_descr (struct gdbarch *gdb > *** 235,241 **** > /* Sanity check. Confirm that there is agreement between the > regcache and the target's redundant REGISTER_BYTE (new targets > should not even be defining it). */ > ! for (i = 0; i < descr->nr_cooked_registers; i++) > { > if (REGISTER_BYTE_P ()) > gdb_assert (descr->register_offset[i] == REGISTER_BYTE (i)); > --- 235,241 ---- > /* Sanity check. Confirm that there is agreement between the > regcache and the target's redundant REGISTER_BYTE (new targets > should not even be defining it). */ > ! for (i = 0; i < descr->nr_raw_registers; i++) > { > if (REGISTER_BYTE_P ()) > gdb_assert (descr->register_offset[i] == REGISTER_BYTE (i));