From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8115 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2003 04:23:05 -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 8097 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2003 04:23:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.0.121) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2003 04:23:05 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778242B90; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:23:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCD6527.9000506@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 04:23:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: powerpc remote target registers References: <3FC7FF5D.7060906@eCosCentric.com> <3FCB8DDC.30603@gnu.org> <3FCC21B2.30000@eCosCentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 > But then the registers aren't marked as cached at all, so they're now requested from the target each time you do "info all-registers", even though they come up with 0s. Should I pretend the registers not supplied by the target were 0, or should I mark them as unavailable (i.e. the same as what having an "x" does) so at least it's consistent? Ah, they should be supplied but with a value of zero. The protocol (for historic reasons) specifies that a short G packet should have the missing entries treated as zero (like you intended). Andrew