From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1769 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2004 16:01:16 -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 1759 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2004 16:01:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2004 16:01:15 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3EG1Eu8025820 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:01:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (dhcp64-176.boston.redhat.com [172.16.64.176]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3EG1Ej25218; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:01:14 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A572B9C; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <407D6046.8090807@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:01:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Orjan Friberg , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Multiplexed registers and invalidating the register cache References: <407D242B.109@axis.com> <20040414144607.GA5700@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040414144607.GA5700@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 > I think you should make this change unconditionally - and flush the > entire frame cache. I'm not sure whether it should be in the generic > code that writes a register or the user-level code triggered by set > $reg = val, though. > > I've been meaning to do this for a long time. For instance, there is a > writeable register on PowerPC targets which has some read-only bits. > Right now, if you set it to an arbitrary value and then print it you'll > get the value GDB wrote - not the value that was actually accepted into > the register. > > Andrew convinced me that the performance cost associated with this > would be small in practice. Right. Andrew