Re: [PATCH] Fix ptype.exp fail in MIPS

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>]

On Tue, 27 May 2014, Pedro Alves wrote:

> > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2013-06/msg00032.html
> 
> That was an alternative proposal, but nobody replied saying
> it was a great idea, so I don't know.  The main disadvantage
> is that the user would have to know about these different
> registers, which may be confusing and obscure.
> 
> > Do you think add ptr64 or $_xx is OK for you to handle this issue?
> 
> I'm leaning torwards ptr64.  Anyone see a reason why that wouldn't work?
> 
> That was also sort of agreed upon by both Mark and Maciej at:
> 
>  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2013-06/msg00029.html
> 
> "
> >  Overall I think the test is too strict.  If you think the use of "long
> > long" is unfortunate for the PC, then an artificial type might be created
> > internally within GDB specifically for the PC, similarly to what we do
> > e.g. for IEEE 754 data types and floating-point registers in some cases.
> 
> An artificial type like that probably is the way to go.
> "
> 
> But of course that was a while ago and they might have changed
> their minds since.

 I don't have a clear preference towards either proposal.  Ideally we'd 
move away from using any names for magic registers that clash with actual 
hardware register names on some or all targets.  But it would have been 
good ~30 years ago when GDB was starting.  Nowadays I think too many users 
are used to what we use and a lot of effort invested would break.  Maybe 
that's actually an argument in favour of your solution.

  Maciej