From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-8858-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11481 invoked by alias); 11 May 2002 13:16:44 -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 11473 invoked from network); 11 May 2002 13:16:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 May 2002 13:16:42 -0000
Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id OAA13187; Sat, 11 May 2002 14:16:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma013132; Sat, 11 May 02 14:16:27 +0100
Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.1.91])
	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10550;
	Sat, 11 May 2002 14:16:27 +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 OAA13602;
	Sat, 11 May 2002 14:16:26 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200205111316.OAA13602@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb@sources.redhat.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: ARM and virtual/raw registers 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 May 2002 14:42:58 EDT."
             <3CDC14B2.4030407@cygnus.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 06:16:00 -0000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2

> > If, as I understand your previous postings to imply, having pseudo 
> > registers stored in the cache is wrong, why does regcache_read() allow 
> > them?
> > 
> > regcache_read (int rawnum, char *buf)
> > {
> >   gdb_assert (rawnum >= 0 && rawnum < (NUM_REGS + NUM_PSEUDO_REGS));
> 
> Lets just pretend you didn't see that :-)
> Some existing mechanisms store pseudo-register values in the cache.  In 
> addition ``NUM_REGS'' is overloaded - it controls too many aspects of 
> GDB - num regs in G packet, num regs to save across an inferior function 
> call, ...

So how about a comment saying pseudo regs shouldn't be in the cache!

R.