This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] MIPS: MIPS_LAST_FP_ARG_REGNUM, MIPS_LAST_ARG_REGNUM changes
On May 21, 2:06pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On May 21, 12:17pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > This is patch 2 of many more to come. It depends upon
> >> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-05/msg00268.html.
> >> >
> >> > Okay?
> >
> >>
> >> Per my earlier comment, I don't think this one is right. I don't think
> >> things like LAST_ARG_REGNUM belong in that cooked/raw reg structure.
> >> Instead, they should exist out side it.
> >>
> >> If the code really wants to differentiate between the raw and cooked
> >> register number, why not use the more explicit:
> >>
> >> rawnum->gp0_regnum + tdep->last_arg_regnum
> >
> >
> > So, last_arg_regnum represents a count of the number of argument
> > registers?
>
> It's an offset from register 0.
That doesn't help either for the same reasons that I gave earlier. (I
left it quoted below.)
> However, I think if the first patch is
> sorted out, this will fallout.
I don't recall seeing a response to my first patch. I'll check the
archives...
> Andrew
Kevin
> > That's fine (at the moment anyway) for the GPRs, but it doesn't work
> > for the FPRs. For o32, I have things arranged so that there are a
> > total of 16 cooked FPRs and 32 raw FPRs. Therefore, argument register
> > counts will be different between cooked vs raw. IMO, it really does
> > make sense to put these values into the cooked/raw structure. I'm
> > having difficulty understanding why you're objecting to this layout.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
>
>-- End of excerpt from Andrew Cagney