Re: RFC: Available registers as a target property

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:35:05PM -0700, Chris Zankel wrote:
> >The options are to tell GDB about this directly, or to have the OCD
> >tell GDB about the real properties of the target.  I obviously prefer
> >the latter when possible, because it allows GDB to gracefully handle
> >binaries built for one configuration, and run on another configuration
> >where they still work (but may be somehow affected by state they can
> >not see).
> 
> This actually goes back to your comment above - I think. How do you 
> tread 'pseudo' registers? Would it make sense to add 'flags' to the 
> 'set' command?
> 
> set:<NAME>:<PROTOCOL NUMBER>[:<FLAGS>]

I don't think so, but I don't have a good idea of what you would use it
for.  Do you want to give me an example?

> Oops... I wasn't sure if I was looking at our code or the original GDB 
> sources. It looks like GDB has support for non-sequential pnums, but 
> doesn't allow to assign them from gdbarch.

Correct - not yet.  Soon I hope.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC