This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] Revise REGISTER_SIM_REGNO()
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>,Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 15:39:00 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Revise REGISTER_SIM_REGNO()
- References: <3CE53F51.BEC03B6D@redhat.com> <200205181055.LAA26201@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:55:01AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> > > I need a way the target vector to let REGISTER_NAME() know that the
> > > register is "unavailable this session", so that it can return an empty
> > > string for the register; so that gdb won't think it exists at all.
> >
> >
> > I see. This is something that depends on both the arch and the target.
>
> Yep, the arch says what registers a processor has, the target says which
> of those it can supply.
>
> Of course, you will only get a useful debugging session if the two overlap
> sufficiently.
>
> I suspect that it will be quite common for the arch to describe registers
> that are only available when the processor is running in a privileged
> mode; clearly you don't need those to debug a user-level program, but they
> can be very helpful when trying to debug an OS. Certainly this is the way
> I'd like to describe the views of ARM processors.
SH is the same. The GNU/Linux native patch that the community is using
(which I keep meaning to fix up and submit...) patches a lot of
register names to "".
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer