Re: [regcache] raw vs. cooked...

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

>> > 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?
> 
> 
> I assume you're talking about the fix I described in this message:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-05/msg00322.html
> 
> It seems like this wouldn't work for SH64 though so I was waiting until I
> had some more time to chase it. (or some SH experts piped up).  It certainly
> seems to fix the problem for 32 bit SH though.  Perhaps we could do the fix
> for all but the 64 bit version and then let someone using SH64 trip on the
> assertion and have to fix it?

To be honest, I suspect splitting sh-tdep along the lines of i386-tdep 
and x86-64-tdep might be the way to go.  Anway, yes, good suggestion,

Elena?

Andrew