From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24794-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 21100 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2006 20:55:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 21092 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Apr 2006 20:55:59 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO sunset.davemloft.net) (216.27.180.168)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:55:57 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=davem) 	by sunset.davemloft.net with esmtp (Exim 4.60) 	(envelope-from <davem@davemloft.net>) 	id 1FRbWE-0008G3-Hn; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:55:54 -0700
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:35:00 -0000
Message-Id: <20060406.135554.14205789.davem@davemloft.net>
To: drow@false.org
Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: core regs vs. proc-service regs mess
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060406133250.GA25088@nevyn.them.org>
References: <20060405132258.GA28872@nevyn.them.org> 	<20060405.220644.04932953.davem@davemloft.net> 	<20060406133250.GA25088@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:32:50 -0400

> It's .reg-xfp; created by bfd/elf.c:elfcore_grok_prxfpreg.
 ...
> No point testing gdbarch for NULL; it won't be.  Also, I think
> gdbarch_regset_from_core_section_p is enough.  If that returns NULL,
> then skip the regset.  We don't need to cater to incomplete
> implementations of the core functions.
> 
> Oh, and GDB prefers not to use assignments in if statements.
> 
> But otherwise, yeah, this is what I had in mind.  Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback.

Can I get approval for the Linux/Sparc dwarf2 bit I posted yesterday?

  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-04/msg00065.html
 
I want to get that in first, then I'll finish up a final version of
these core regs changes.

Also, I haven't gotten approval for that one-liner break.exp fix
I posted the other day which we discussed in depth a few days
ago:

  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-04/msg00051.html

If I could get an ACK or NACK on that I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks a lot!