From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7548 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2002 00:09:23 -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 7539 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2002 00:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2002 00:09:22 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 182i6u-0003Hk-00 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:09:01 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 182hBM-0002eX-00 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:09:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MIPS targets broken by dummy frame/regcache changes Message-ID: <20021019000932.GA10181@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20021010205112.GA26436@nevyn.them.org> <20021014174556.GA17948@nevyn.them.org> <3DB09C3E.9060706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DB09C3E.9060706@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:41:50PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >@@ -28,9 +29,7 @@ > > int > > mips_linux_cannot_fetch_register (int regno) > > { > >- if (regno >= FP_REGNUM) > >- return 1; > >- else if (regno == PS_REGNUM) > >+ if (regno == PS_REGNUM) > > return 1; > > else if (regno == ZERO_REGNUM) > > return 1; > >@@ -41,9 +40,7 @@ mips_linux_cannot_fetch_register (int re > > int > > mips_linux_cannot_store_register (int regno) > > { > >- if (regno >= FP_REGNUM) > >- return 1; > >- else if (regno == PS_REGNUM) > >+ if (regno == PS_REGNUM) > > return 1; > > else if (regno == ZERO_REGNUM) > > return 1; > > > >It's wrong. First of all, you changed the behavior for registers above > >FP_REGNUM, like UNUSED_REGNUM. Secondly, FP_REGNUM did not become OK > >to fetch/store after this patch. Just the numbering changed. > > > >I'll fix it in a little bit. > > Ulgh, what was I thinking. > > The reggroup code will let this be fixed properly - can finally specify > exactly which registers should be saved/restored across an inferior > function call. Looking forward to it! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer