From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29387 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2012 18:53:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 29378 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2012 18:53:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:53:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1EIrPTC006977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:25 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1EIrNCx006718; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:53:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3AADA3.6050509@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:54:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] rl78: Rearrange order in which registers are displayed References: <20120209171537.20c1c6b1@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120209171537.20c1c6b1@mesquite.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00279.txt.bz2 On 02/10/2012 12:15 AM, Kevin Buettner wrote: > The patch below uses register groups to shorten the list of registers > displayed when "info registers" is used. It adds some pseudo registers > and rearranges others so that the banked registers are displayed at > the end for "info all-registers". The register order from 0 to NREGS > stays the same. > > This change was requested by Renesas. They wanted the more useful and > important registers displayed earlier on for "info all-registers". > > I considered writing a custom method for printing registers, but it > seems that this approach has fallen out of favor these days. Also, I > would guess that the custom approach might not be compatible with MI > enabled clients. > > Comments? FWIW, looks fine to me. > +/* Implement the `register_sim_regno' gdbarch method. */ > + > +static int > +rl78_register_sim_regno(struct gdbarch *gdbarch, int regnum) Missing space before parens. -- Pedro Alves