From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id CmODJRKlTWJqNwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 10:34:58 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 84A491F344; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:34:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F178D1ED17 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634FC38515FF for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:34:57 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 634FC38515FF DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1649255697; bh=miN+hDIsGdUoWnnmMy62nMj7PBd/HsoKK8hmisxuTcs=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=nPNOUExwBbC7aSASCSxJdhcnXNBsGpIiDl7AeeSEfznrslH33GC7Pf3TaJD7S+C7r JXcQWaNL8T228AO12adQ/bUNbc4NJiRbdzXQIOZPfjr+PK+me8hQLPTaWBBX7SImQW JKRNLM8ziFx6GVtnxwY00izutp1/yfxVe9PHNnSI= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CEA63857415 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:34:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5CEA63857415 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 236EYWXe016633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:34:36 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 236EYWXe016633 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C97E51ED17; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:34:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/16] Default register groups, and general related cleanup Content-Language: en-US To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:34:32 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2022-04-06 08:04, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote: > This work started with this thread: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-March/187071.html > > In which it was discovered that the ppc targets don't add the default > register groups during gdbarch initialisation. > > I've run into this problem before, and every time I wonder why the > default register groups aren't added by default in all cases. > > So, looked at doing just that. > > But the register group management code was feeling a bit crusty, so I > thought I'd clean it up. > > Then I hit some bugs, which I figured I'd fix. > > Anyway, patch #9 is what I set out to do. Everything else is me > trying to improve the register group handling code. > > Changes in v2: > > - Rebased onto current master, the changes I make to > gdb.tui/regs.exp in one of the patches needed some small > adjustments given recent tui changes, > > - Updated patch #11 based on Lancelot's feedback, this looks much > better now. Other than the small nits I pointed out, this all LGTM. I left a comment about maybe using intrusive_list instead of std::vector, if that could simplify things. But if so, it can be done later / after this series is merged. Thanks, Simon