From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4570 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2012 20:55:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 4559 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2012 20:55:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:55:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71KtQPZ028235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:55:26 -0400 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-52.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.52]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q71KtNQS015406; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:55:24 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: palves@redhat.com (Pedro Alves), gdb-patches@sourceware.org (GDB Patches), tromey@redhat.com (Tom Tromey), jan.kratochvil@redhat.com (Jan Kratochvil) Subject: Re: info registers output References: <201208012049.q71Kn9jQ011712@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201208012049.q71Kn9jQ011712@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (Ulrich Weigand's message of "Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:49:09 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, August 01 2012, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: >> Ah. I wonder if that's been made on purpose. You get this on amd64: >> >> (gdb) info registers rip pc >> rip 0x390f407e68 0x390f407e68 >> pc: 0x390f407e68 >> >> GDB knows the type of "pc", and so should be able to print "pc" like "rip". >> >> Would that be a good idea? > > Would make sense to me. (In fact, there probably ought to be a single > routine to print a register, called by both code paths, to avoid having > the code diverge again in the future ...) FWIW I created sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14428 for this. Thanks, -- Sergio