From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8977 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2010 15:59:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 8933 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2010 15:58:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:58:51 +0000 Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so4227012wyj.0 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:58:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.205.213 with SMTP id j63mr8923519weo.60.1292947129224; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:58:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.182.206 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:58:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101221084248.1c922955@mesquite.lan> References: <201012191039.oBJAdNBN010655@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20101221084248.1c922955@mesquite.lan> From: Hui Zhu Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] mips tracepoint: fix Bug 12013 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00378.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 23:42, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:15:59 +0800 > Hui Zhu wrote: > >> > It is a common trick to return an empty register name for a (raw) >> > register to hide the register from the user. __So I don't think this >> > diff is ok, since the goal obviously is to hide the raw registers in >> > mips in favour of the pseudo registers. >> >> Could you tell me what this hide for? =A0I didn't find who get some >> advantage form this part? > > I agree with Mark. =A0We do not want to expose the MIPS raw registers > directly to the user. > > It is possible to debug a 64-bit device using a 32-bit programming > model. =A0In such instances, the raw registers are configured to be > 64-bits wide, while the pseudo registers are configured to be 32-bits > wide. =A0The registers that the user sees - the pseudo registers - match > the user's expectations given the programming model being used. Thanks. Do you think I can add a special name for these raw registers then other part can use this raw register if need. Thanks, Hui > > Your patch exposes the raw registers in such a way that errant code > (within GDB) could present the user with an inconsistent view of the > registers. =A0This, in my opinion, is not desirable. > > Please revert your patch and, in the future, wait until a consensus is > achieved before comitting your work. > > Kevin >