Re: [PATCH] Adjust `pc-fp.exp' for ppc64/s390x (PR 12659)

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>]

On Wednesday, August 01 2012, Ulrich Weigand wrote:

> Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 10:25 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:

>> > Since this difference in the output does not seem to be an error itself,
>> > the patch below just adjusts the testcase to match this kind of output
>> > as well.  It does not fail on x86*.
>> 
>> Why is the output format different?  It looks like consistency here would be good.
>
> The problem is that "pc", "fp", etc can refer to different things under
> the covers: either a register defined by the target code, or else a
> "user register" defined by GDB common code.
>
> On many targets (but not Intel), "pc" is the name of a register defined
> by the target.  In this case, registers_info uses the standard
> gdbarch_print_registers_info routine to output its content; this gives
> a larger space between register name and value, and outputs the
> contents both in hex and in the register's default type, usually a
> function pointer type.
>
> On targets where "pc" is *not* the name of a register defined by the
> target, registers_info still recognizes the name as "user register",
> and uses a separate code path to print its value.  This results in
> a different (shorter) output ...

Thanks for the explanation, I was debugging it here and came to this
same conclusion.

I will try to make the printing routine for user registers to behave
like the one for target registers, unless you have other opinion about it.

-- 
Sergio