From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9921 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2011 20:49:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 9913 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2011 20:49:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_EG X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6FKmNCX011547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:48:23 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6FKmNlB003899; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:48:23 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6FKmL4f025665; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:48:22 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: partially available registers References: Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:52:07 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> As for the patch itself: Daniel> * Some documentation on the gdbarch method would be nice, in Daniel> particular, the return value. Does 0 mean "not a pseudo"? Yeah, I left that out for the initial change, but I think I shouldn't have. I find gdbarch.sh very hard to read. Does anybody else? Daniel> * I am not happy about having to implement both Daniel> gdbarch_pseudo_register_read and gdbarch_pseudo_register_read_value, Daniel> depending on which regcache read function was called. So for a final Daniel> version, is it practical to push this down and only call the value Daniel> version if it is registered? That means implementing the existing Daniel> regcache read in terms of the new one, instead of the other way Daniel> around. I will look at it. Thanks for looking at this. Tom