From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9173 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 16:47:55 -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 9140 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 16:47:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 16:47:54 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CFC3E98; Fri, 17 May 2002 12:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CE53443.6070807@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:47:00 -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: gdb@sources.redhat.com, Elena Zannoni Subject: Re: pseudo registers in the regcache References: <200205171631.RAA21279@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2 > How about renaming the 68k stuff as being MEMORY_REGS and reserving the >> > PSEUDO concept for what we really seem to want -- a view of a (or a >> > combination of) physical (or memory) register(s)? > >> >> Or update mc68hc11 :-) > > > Well, I was hoping to avoid something that would be regarded as a majorly > invasive change (and which I've no chance of testing). Reclassifying the > mc68hc11 pseudos as memory registers would avoid that (basically it would > be a search and replace type operation ;-). I'd rather not see GDB do anything to legitimatize a now redundant mechanism. I think the line-in-sand approach to just banning values in pseudo-registers post register-read is both better and easier Shouldn't be too hard to do this using the tweaked regcache - that uses regcache->descr->nr_registers instead of NUM_REGS + NUM_PSEUDO_REGS. In fact [evil laughter :-)] I can think of a few other things that it could disallow: - holes in the register cache - differing register virtual and raw sizes - ... (but worry about that later :-) enjoy, Andrew