From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3703 invoked by alias); 2 May 2002 10:13:15 -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 3673 invoked from network); 2 May 2002 10:13:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO beta.dmz-eu.st.com) (164.129.1.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 May 2002 10:13:11 -0000 Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (zeta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with SMTP id 7101D4FCB; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:13:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics, from userid 0) id 2351E6259; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:13:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from thistle.bri.st.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 400461848; Thu, 2 May 2002 10:13:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.8.14] (helo=masterwort) by thistle.bristol.st.com with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #5) id 173DaF-0002Zk-00; Thu, 02 May 2002 11:13:07 +0100 Received: from [164.129.14.84] (helo=st.com) by masterwort with asmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 173DaE-0001Y9-00; Thu, 02 May 2002 11:13:06 +0100 Message-ID: <3CD1115A.E001252@st.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 03:13:00 -0000 From: Joern Rennecke Reply-To: joern.rennecke@st.com Organization: SuperH UK Ltd. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ezannoni@redhat.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, aoliva@redhat.com, bje@redhat.com, ac131313@cygnus.com Subject: Re: SH5 compact register numbering in gcc -> gdb interface References: <3CCED903.294513BE@st.com> <3CCEEBC6.5959E2FD@st.com> <15568.36431.906090.896909@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 ezannoni@redhat.com wrote: > This can be worked around in gdb with > STAB_REG_TO_REGNUM/DWARF2_REG_TO_REGNUM functions. Other targets do > this. OK, but I see no point in setting up such a mapping when there is no data it would operate on. > > This shouldn't really matter since these registers should > > not appear in debug information with the ABIs currently > > in use. It is confusing, however, that gcc pretends that > > this is part of the interface. I therefore propose to remove > > mappings for T and GDB from SH_DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER. > > I am not sure I understand your last sentence. You want to remove T > from the mapping? It is not strictly necessary. The presense of T and gdb in the mapping is just confusing, since there is no interface for these registers between gcc and gdb at the present, and no reason for it to be. If we ever think we have to put a user variable into T and/or gbr, and express this in debug information, we can still pick a number, and make it consistent between gcc and gdb at the same time. -- -------------------------- SuperH 2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ T:+44 1454 462330