From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13613 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2010 02:29:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 13599 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2010 02:29:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:29:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 5370 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2010 02:29:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.101?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Dec 2010 02:29:24 -0000 Message-ID: <4D0EBF7B.7050807@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 02:29:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch, arm] Consistent display of registers in corefile References: <4D022D1A.7030701@codesourcery.com> <201012101443.oBAEhFiT023638@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20101213025718.GA4731@caradoc.them.org> <4D05EEC0.7030200@codesourcery.com> <20101219182358.GA7961@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20101219182358.GA7961@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00359.txt.bz2 On 12/20/2010 02:23 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 06:00:32PM +0800, Yao Qi wrote: >> 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? > > Please use uint32 for r11 also. It's sometimes the frame pointer, but > that's not required and it may have any arbitrary data in it. > > Otherwise OK. > Thanks, Dan. I'll use uint32 for r11 in my commit. Do you have comments to arm_fps_group.patch, which fixes the 2nd problem I pointed out in [1]? In short, this fix will make GDB treat fps register as registers in float group, fps will disappear in output of "info register". gdb/ * arm-tdep.c (arm_register_reggroup_p): New. (arm_gdbarch_init): Set arm_register_reggroup_p for hook register_reggroup_p. arm_fps_group.patch is the 2nd patch I attached in [1]. [1] http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-12/msg00134.html -- Yao (齐尧)