From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-8534-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30310 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2002 09:57:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30274 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2002 09:56:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2002 09:56:59 -0000
Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id KAA21915; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:56:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma021745; Thu, 18 Apr 02 10:56:40 +0100
Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21541;
	Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:56:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18])
	by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16630;
	Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:56:39 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200204180956.KAA16630@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Organization: ARM Ltd.
X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd)
X-Fax: +44 1223 400410
X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ.
X-Url: http://www.arm.com/
Subject: Re: think-o: ARM register byte ps VS fps? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:06:58 EDT."
             <3CBDD5E2.7000904@cygnus.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 02:57:00 -0000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2

> Hello,
> 
> I'm looking at the code:
> 
> static int
> arm_register_byte (int regnum)
> {
>    if (regnum < ARM_F0_REGNUM)
>      return regnum * INT_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE;
>    else if (regnum < ARM_PS_REGNUM)
>      return (NUM_GREGS * INT_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE
> 	    + (regnum - ARM_F0_REGNUM) * FP_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE);
>    else
>      return (NUM_GREGS * INT_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE
> 	    + NUM_FREGS * FP_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE
> 	    + (regnum - ARM_FPS_REGNUM) * STATUS_REGISTER_SIZE);
> }
> 
> where:
> 
> #define ARM_FPS_REGNUM 24	/* floating point status register */
> #define ARM_PS_REGNUM 25	/* Contains processor status */
> 
> While I suspect it ``works'', would ``(regnum < ARM_FPS_REGNUM)'' be better?
> 
> enjoy,
> Andrew
> 

Rewriting it as a table of constants would probably be better still.

I'll add it to my (copious) todo list.

R.