From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15050 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2010 14:26:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 15040 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2010 14:26:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:26:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747E32BAB2F; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id O88zbA9a7a4z; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422902BAB28; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5FAE8F5917; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:26:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: -data-list-register-names regression? Message-ID: <20100317142609.GK3844@adacore.com> References: <201003171345.44000.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201003171345.44000.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 > I've tried to use Eclipse CDT with GDB 7.0 today, and found that the > registers views is totally broken, as it in does not show any > registers. Just for the record: I've noticed this report and will take into account the discussion in order to decide what to do for 7.1. I personally don't have an opinion, right now - I don't know what to think. On the one hand, I guess we should be able to print the list of register names even if the program hasn't started yet. On the other hand, until we do have an executable file, we don't know what the architecture is. And even so, doesn't the architecture actually depend on the frame (the case of the powerpc+spu)? Given that this was already a problem with 7.0, I propose we pass for 7.1 and consider either 7.1.1 and/or 7.2. -- Joel