From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-34853-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17113 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2004 17:13:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17099 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2004 17:13:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Aug 2004 17:13:44 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i74HDie1019680
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:13:44 -0400
Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i74HDga16910;
	Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:13:43 -0400
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: PowerPC sim & GDB: use fixed register numbering
References: <vt23c3mwgzk.fsf@zenia.home> <410F8C3E.3060502@gnu.org>
	<vt2zn5blamt.fsf@zenia.home> <4110EA27.7020904@gnu.org>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:13:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <4110EA27.7020904@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <vt2vffyde1a.fsf@zenia.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00084.txt.bz2


Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
> > Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >>> Have a look at the other sim-*.h files, you'll notice that most define
> >>> an enum namespace and not a series of magic constants.   Can we expand
> >>> the table so that the constants aren't needed?
> > Is this going in the right direction?
> 
> Yes, that should go in.

Okay, committed.  Thanks to you and Kevin for the review.

> What's your plan with SPRs?

I think it's best to use the SPR numbers assigned by the ISA to
identify them.  Trying to keep tables based on automatically assigned
enum values in sync would take a lot of work, for little gain, since
ISA SPR numbers are (obviously) unambiguous within any particular PPC
variant.

At the moment, the sim doesn't support any SPRs from different PPC
variants whose numbers clash.  There'll be work needed there to handle
that; I don't have any particular insights there.