From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26995 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2010 02:39:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 26987 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2010 02:39:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:39:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 16196 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2010 02:39:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 Aug 2010 02:39:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Philippe Waroquiers Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdbserver target description: info reg displays or not according to group presence ??? Message-ID: <20100802023939.GA25401@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Philippe Waroquiers , gdb@sourceware.org References: <626075219D624850B89B9E0A39D09734@soleil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <626075219D624850B89B9E0A39D09734@soleil> 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: 2010-08/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:16:57AM +0200, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: > GROUP > The register group to which this register belongs. GROUP must be > either `general', `float', or `vector'. If no GROUP is specified, > GDB will not display the register in `info registers'. Separately, note "must be". Don't use group="s1". Target-defined register groups aren't supported. > Looking at the trace, I see that the correct description is returned > to gdb. I see that gdb properly has understood the target description > as it shows the normal and shadow registers. > However, it does always shows all the shadow registers, not taking > into account the presence or not of a group. Yes, it looks like a bug in i386_register_reggroup_p, in the last bit (group == general_reggroup_p). One way to fix it would be to add a range check (&& regnum < I386_NUM_GREGS). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery