Re: internal error reading f0-f7 registers in arm-elf targets.

[Andrea Michelotti <amichelotti@ipitec.it>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:34:50PM +0200, Andrea Michelotti wrote:
>  
>
>>Eclipse need it.
>>-------------------------
>>Andrea Michelotti 
>>HW/SW Co-Design Manager
>>IPITEC (ATMEL)
>>    
>>
>
>First of all, _please_ stop posting an entire copy of the ChangeLog
>file.  We don't need all 400K.
>
>  
>
>>Index: arm-tdep.h
>>===================================================================
>>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/arm-tdep.h,v
>>retrieving revision 1.11
>>diff -c -p -r1.11 arm-tdep.h
>>*** arm-tdep.h	22 Mar 2003 20:39:21 -0000	1.11
>>--- arm-tdep.h	25 Jul 2003 11:24:35 -0000
>>*************** enum gdb_regnum {
>>*** 62,68 ****
>>  /* GCC doesn't support long doubles (extended IEEE values).  The FP
>>     register virtual size is therefore 64 bits.  Used for documentation
>>     purposes and code readability in this header.  */
>>! #define FP_REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE	8
>>  
>>  /* Status registers are the same size as general purpose registers.
>>     Used for documentation purposes and code readability in this
>>--- 62,72 ----
>>  /* GCC doesn't support long doubles (extended IEEE values).  The FP
>>     register virtual size is therefore 64 bits.  Used for documentation
>>     purposes and code readability in this header.  */
>>! 
>>! /* generate an internal error in findvar.c */
>>! /* #define FP_REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE	8 */
>>! 
>>! #define FP_REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE	FP_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE
>>    
>>
>
>
>Secondly, just changing the number is hardly correct.  Patches have to
>fix the problem, not just hide around it by making an incorrect change;
>and the comment is still accurate.
>
>  
>
Sorry for ChangeLog I'm new in doing this.
But it's clear that in arm-tdep.h  or in findvar.c (where 
FP_REGISTER_VIRTUAL and FP_REGISTER_RAW are expected have the same size) 
there is something wrong. I preferred patching arm-tdep.h because 
doesn't affect other targets.
Even if the comment is correct, It seemed to me, watching others files 
interested in this change, that putting the virtual size equal to the 
real size (incrementing it) doesn't create problems.
could you confirm this?
thank you
Andrea.

Andrea Michelotti
HW/SW Co-Design Manager
IPITEC (ATMEL)