From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-9941-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 12420 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2002 05:45:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 12413 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2002 05:45:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2002 05:45:50 -0000
Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 247DF3ED1; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3D5F3484.8010807@ges.redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:45:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Register Groups (again)
References: <3D5EE0C6.7080902@ges.redhat.com> <20020818040145.GA26488@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2

> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 07:48:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> See: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2001-02/msg00268.html for the 
>> origins of this idea.
>> 
>> 
>> I'd like to propose a new object ``struct reggroup'' and a number of 
>> methods:
> 
> 
> Hmm, it seems more intuitive to me to have attributes for each
> register.  Float, vector, system for the register's class or group, and
> then we could have other not necessarily mutually exclusive flags. 
> Like, available in kernel or user mode.
> 
> Just a thought though.

Sorry, I think I'm missing something.  I don't see a difference. 
s/reggroup/regattrib/?

>> - how it relates to frames
>> 
>> It currently assumes that the register groups are identical between 
>> frames :-/

i.e.:
	register_reggroup_p(gdbarch,regnum,group)
rather than:
	frame_register_reggroup_p(frame,regnum,group)

> With an attribute scheme, once we know which registers are present in a
> frame we'd know which (say) float registers are present in that
> frame...

Now I'm really confused.  How is this not possible using what I described?

Andrew