Hello,

The attached ramps up the store.exp test by encouraging the compiler to 
use more registers.

For the d10v, I get just one failure:

> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest

However, for the i386, I see:

> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - longest
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - double
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - doublest
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - int
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - long
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - double
> FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - doublest

(outch) before, and:

FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: print old r - doublest
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - int
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - long
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - doublest

after the register_to_value patch is applied.  I guess there'll be some 
more fixing.

People might want to anticipate a jump in failures as this appears to be 
pushing GDB's boundaries :-(.  KFAIL away.

Committed, I'll commit the bulk of the register_to_value fix in a tick,
Andrew