From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29529 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2003 22:22:59 -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 29499 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2003 22:22:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2003 22:22:58 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49F22B63; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EE3B73B.9040700@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:22:00 -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: Kris Warkentin Cc: Michael Snyder , Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [regcache] raw vs. cooked... References: <3EE13867.1E530DE9@redhat.com> <3EE38949.7040504@redhat.com> <002d01c32df8$866f5b50$2a00a8c0@dash> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 >> > 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