From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27829 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2003 19:25:31 -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 27822 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2003 19:25:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Jul 2003 19:25:31 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C21A2B84; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F24271D.9040304@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:25:00 -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: amichelotti@ipitec.it, Daniel Jacobowitz , Richard Earnshaw Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: internal error reading f0-f7 registers in arm-elf targets. References: <3F2115DA.9070507@ipitec.it> <20030725130931.GB18444@nevyn.them.org> <3F2133D7.8020800@ipitec.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00477.txt.bz2 > 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. Well arm_register_virtual_size() and arm_register_virtual_type() disagree, outch! BTW, see also: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=1276 I get the feeling that FP_REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE has nothing to do with FP_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE and arm_register_virtual_size should return the raw value. Well ok, technically, arm_register_virtual_size, arm_register_raw_size and arm_register_virtual_type should all be folded into arm_register_type. Looking at FP_REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE that really only comes into play when the Arm doesn't even have H/W floating point registers. See arm-linux-tdep.c where it pushes on a double fp value on the stack. On the other hand, the Arm prologue analysis code, appears to assume that those registers are always 12 bytes. Look for: /* stfe f?, [sp, -#c]! */ store floating point extended (i.e. 12 bytes) /* sfmfd f0, 4, [sp!] */ store 12 byte floating point registers so it things 12 byte floats are stored. Andrew