From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1125 invoked by alias); 27 May 2014 21:52:44 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1109 invoked by uid 89); 27 May 2014 21:52:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:52:42 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1WpPIU-0002yg-Kf from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Tue, 27 May 2014 14:52:38 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 27 May 2014 14:52:38 -0700 Received: from localhost (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:52:36 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:52:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Pedro Alves CC: Hui Zhu , Hui Zhu , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ptype.exp fail in MIPS In-Reply-To: <5384D643.1070707@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <53719B17.5000208@mentor.com> <5374FF0D.6060608@redhat.com> <5384D643.1070707@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00685.txt.bz2 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