Re: [patch] mips-tdep: info registers

Joel Brobecker
2009-02-27T19:56:17Z

Aleksandar,

>Joel, the attached removes numeric value syntax, but allows it for mips;
>mips will explicitly map regno to raw regno (which is currently 1-1).
>
>I will let you take it from here.

I am afraid that I won't have time to do much more than review your
change. Just reviewing changes right now is a struggle for me, so
do you think you could submit them officially?

I think there are two parts to this patch:

> Index: gdb/infcmd.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infcmd.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.231
> diff -u -p -r1.231 infcmd.c
> --- gdb/infcmd.c 25 Jan 2009 23:35:51 -0000 1.231
> +++ gdb/infcmd.c 23 Feb 2009 18:21:54 -0000
> @@ -1948,21 +1948,6 @@ registers_info (char *addr_exp, int fpre
> }
> }
>
> - /* A register number? (how portable is this one?). */
> - {
> - char *endptr;
> - int regnum = strtol (start, &endptr, 0);
> - if (endptr == end
> - && regnum >= 0
> - && regnum < gdbarch_num_regs (gdbarch)
> - + gdbarch_num_pseudo_regs (gdbarch))
> - {
> - gdbarch_print_registers_info (gdbarch, gdb_stdout,
> - frame, regnum, fpregs);
> - continue;
> - }
> - }
> -
> /* A register group? */
> {
> struct reggroup *group;

This patch is fine, and approved. Please just run it through the testsuite
before checking in. (can you remember to post a ChangeLog for it as well?)

The mips-tdep part can be treated independently. Although I don't see
any problem with it, and you updated it the same way I would have changed
it, I'm not sure about going against the comment:

> /* Map [gdbarch_num_regs .. 2*gdbarch_num_regs) onto the raw registers,
> but then don't make the raw register names visible. */

It looks fine to return "0" ... "31" as the names of the raw registers,
but I'd like someone with more experience with the mips target to confirm
it.

> Index: gdb/mips-tdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/mips-tdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.490
> diff -u -p -r1.490 mips-tdep.c
> --- gdb/mips-tdep.c 22 Feb 2009 01:02:17 -0000 1.490
> +++ gdb/mips-tdep.c 23 Feb 2009 18:21:57 -0000
> @@ -440,13 +440,25 @@ mips_register_name (struct gdbarch *gdba
> "t8", "t9", "k0", "k1", "gp", "sp", "s8", "ra"
> };
>
> + static char *mips_gpr_numeric_names[] = {

A little short comment explaining what this is about might be useful.

> + "0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7",
> + "8", "9", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15",
> + "16", "17", "18", "19", "20", "21", "22", "23",
> + "24", "25", "26", "27", "28", "29", "30", "31"
> + };
> +
> enum mips_abi abi = mips_abi (gdbarch);
>
> /* Map [gdbarch_num_regs .. 2*gdbarch_num_regs) onto the raw registers,
> but then don't make the raw register names visible. */

This comment needs to be removed or updated. If the comment next to
mips_gpr_numeric_names is clear enough, I think it can simply be
removed.

> int rawnum = regno % gdbarch_num_regs (gdbarch);
> if (regno < gdbarch_num_regs (gdbarch))
> - return "";
> + {
> + if (regno >= 0)
> + return mips_gpr_numeric_names [regno];
> + else
> + return "";
> + }
>
> /* The MIPS integer registers are always mapped from 0 to 31. The
> names of the registers (which reflects the conventions regarding
> @@ -4601,7 +4613,9 @@ mips_print_registers_info (struct gdbarc
> {
> if (regnum != -1) /* do one specified register */
> {
> - gdb_assert (regnum >= gdbarch_num_regs (gdbarch));
> + if (regnum < gdbarch_num_regs (gdbarch)
> + && regnum >= 0)
> + regnum += gdbarch_num_regs (gdbarch); /* Print pseudo register. */
> if (*(gdbarch_register_name (gdbarch, regnum)) == '\0')
> error (_("Not a valid register for the current processor type"));
>

--
Joel