From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-70994-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19305 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2010 08:30:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 19294 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2010 08:30:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:30:48 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KZ500N00U7R5300@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:30:46 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.70.214.230]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KZ500LJQUB8E250@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:30:45 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:30:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Support x86 pseudo registers
In-reply-to: <201003120423.07852.pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com, msnyder@vmware.com
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83ljdy0wn9.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20100301170152.GA20106@intel.com> <6dc9ffc81003021407l27b513cbm288d1fd1e43d0c46@mail.gmail.com> <83sk8h2tum.fsf@gnu.org> <201003120423.07852.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:23:07 +0000
> Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
>  msnyder@vmware.com
> 
> I just realized that this change means that $sp is now just
> a 16-bit word of $esp, instead of a pseudo-register resolving to
> either $esp/$rsp (32-bit/64-bit).  I can't say it is actually wrong to
> have it that way

I think it's very wrong, because it means we no longer have a generic
stack pointer register, at least not on x86.  Is that true?