From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2503 invoked by alias); 16 May 2002 22:29:12 -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 2491 invoked from network); 16 May 2002 22:29:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 May 2002 22:29:11 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CF03E3D; Thu, 16 May 2002 18:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CE432BD.8050605@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020429 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: read_register_byte can't work with pseudo-reg model References: <200205161535.QAA09516@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 > The only assumption is that if this is defined, then pseudos do not need > unique entries in the regcache (ie they always map onto physical > registers), so we can copy the regcache simply by iterating over > 0..NUM_REGS. So the [0..NUM_REGS) space is mapped 1:1, sounds good. Just resist the temptation to look under the following rock: 0..NUM_REGS will include hardware registers save/restoring that probably isn't a good idea. Per other e-mail, it will eventually need to check if the register should be saved/restored. I think I'll tweak that branch to, when restoring the cache and register_write_p, not call write_register_bytes(). > I need to re-baseline my testsuite runs, but the results look pretty > encouraging compared to previous runs. Andrew