From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8068 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2002 14:44:01 -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 8061 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2002 14:44:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2002 14:44:01 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17gRHe-0002SR-00; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 09:44:02 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17gRIA-0004fI-00; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 10:44:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 07:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Register Groups (again) Message-ID: <20020818144433.GA17899@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3D5EE0C6.7080902@ges.redhat.com> <20020818040145.GA26488@nevyn.them.org> <3D5F3484.8010807@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5F3484.8010807@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:45:40AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 07:48:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>See: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2001-02/msg00268.html for the > >>origins of this idea. > >> > >> > >>I'd like to propose a new object ``struct reggroup'' and a number of > >>methods: > > > > > >Hmm, it seems more intuitive to me to have attributes for each > >register. Float, vector, system for the register's class or group, and > >then we could have other not necessarily mutually exclusive flags. > >Like, available in kernel or user mode. > > > >Just a thought though. > > Sorry, I think I'm missing something. I don't see a difference. > s/reggroup/regattrib/? In your scheme, you have reggroups as a structure. In mine, you'd have a set of flags associated with each register. Not a fundamental difference, but it seems a little more straightforward. As I said, just a passing thought. > > >>- how it relates to frames > >> > >>It currently assumes that the register groups are identical between > >>frames :-/ > > i.e.: > register_reggroup_p(gdbarch,regnum,group) > rather than: > frame_register_reggroup_p(frame,regnum,group) > > >With an attribute scheme, once we know which registers are present in a > >frame we'd know which (say) float registers are present in that > >frame... > > Now I'm really confused. How is this not possible using what I described? I don't understand why this should be dependent on the frame? If you're talking about a hypothetical future GDB where the gdbarch varies by frame, then we'll have to know the gdbarch anyway... I was just suggesting that, with an attribute attached to each register, we would know "for free" which ones were in a register group for a given frame. Maybe I'm wrong, since I don't understand how they could ever vary. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer