From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28631 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2004 19:28:05 -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 28624 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2004 19:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2004 19:28:04 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9454D2B8F; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:28:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF5C642.3000504@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , Fred Fish Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove some hardwired assumptions about register sets References: <200312170614.hBH6Ebtl003033@fred.ninemoons.com> <200312221851.10629.fnf@ninemoons.com> <20031223020339.GA13570@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 06:51:10PM -0700, Fred Fish wrote: > >> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 23:14, Fred Fish wrote: > >> > This patch removes some hard coded assumptions about the sizes of the >> > various processor specific register sets, and also allows them to be >> > of different sizes if necessary. >> > >> > Comments? > >> >> Except for my own followup, there haven't been any comments about this >> patch. >> >> I propose that if there are no objections by this weekend that the >> patch should be checked in, after the previously noted fix is made of >> course. > I like the patch, for what that's worth. Daniel, the patch adds a global variable "num_mips_processor_regs" vis: ! tdep->mips_processor_reg_names = mips_irix_reg_names; ! num_mips_processor_regs = sizeof (mips_irix_reg_names) / sizeof (char *); and that can't be right :-( Anyway, Fred, I'm wondering what motivated the change? During one of my recent cleanups I considered adding register name descriptors like: const struct name_desc mips_generic_reg_name_desc = { mips_generic_reg_names, ARRAY_SIZE (mips_generic_reg_names) }; (I guess that's valid C) but I eventually decided to sidestep the issue (well at least for the moment) and made all the arrays the same size. Andrew