From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25270 invoked by alias); 7 May 2002 19:04:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25206 invoked from network); 7 May 2002 19:04:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2002 19:04:33 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA05911; Tue, 7 May 2002 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id AB15A10AAB; Tue, 7 May 2002 15:03:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15576.9500.4032.367560@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:04:00 -0000 To: joern.rennecke@st.com Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, aoliva@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, bje@redhat.com Subject: Re: SH5 compact register numbering in gcc -> gdb interface In-Reply-To: <3CD823D1.FC1E3717@st.com> References: <3CCED903.294513BE@st.com> <15568.36275.110744.510692@localhost.redhat.com> <3CD12BF8.7E1650C1@st.com> <3CD7EB51.7816DD1@st.com> <3CD803BC.5060900@cygnus.com> <3CD823D1.FC1E3717@st.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 Joern Rennecke writes: > ac131313@cygnus.com wrote: > > Humor me here. > > > > How do you use dwarf2 cfi to unwind a compact register (saved on the > > stack) back to a media register? In addition to the address of the > > saved register you'll need to know that only part of the register was > > saved. Does CFI describe this? > > With the proposed numbering change (2nd revision), we get different > numbers to describe compact an media registers. So when only the lower > 32 bits are saved, gcc can use the SHcompact register number to describe > this. > > N.B., the upper 32 bits of the register are actually overwritten in the > process. The restore from the stack sign-extends from bit 31. The caller > is responsible to make sure that no 64 bit value is live in the register. Yes. We seem to agree on the register numbering scheme. Elena > > -- > -------------------------- > SuperH > 2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ > T:+44 1454 462330