On 12/13/2010 10:57 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:43:15PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> I would suspect that the proper thing to do would be to align the
>> tdesc with the code instead of the other way around.  The arm-core.xml
>> file seems to underspecify things by omitting the type=xxx clause on
>> many registers.  Whoever wrote arm_register_type() at least had to
>> make a conscious decision about the signedness of the type used for
>> the general purpose registers.
> 
> Yeah, I agree.  It was probably my mistake.
> 

In this new patch, 'type="uint32"' is added for registers from r0 to r12
except r11.  r11 is 'type="data_ptr"'.  features/arm*.c files are
regenerated by Makefile.  Regression tested along with the other patch
arm_fps_group.patch on armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi, "corefile restored
general registers" failure in gdb.base/gcore.exp goes away.  Is it OK
for GDB mainline?

-- 
Yao (齐尧)