This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [commit] mn10300: Register a dwarf2_reg_to_regnum function
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: kevinb at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, msnyder at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 03:26:02 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [commit] mn10300: Register a dwarf2_reg_to_regnum function
- References: <20050902180915.07468bb1@ironwood.lan>
> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:09:15 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
>
> This code used to be in the old version of mn10300-tdep.c. It's absence
> from the current version of mn10300-tdep.c is an oversight. When I asked
> Michael Snyder about it a while back, he asked me to reinstate it. So
> here it is...
>
> * mn10300-tdep.c (mn10300_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum): New function.
> (mn10300_gdbarch_init): Register mn10300_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum().
>
> Index: mn10300-tdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/mn10300-tdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.128
> diff -u -p -r1.128 mn10300-tdep.c
> --- mn10300-tdep.c 3 Sep 2005 00:49:06 -0000 1.128
> +++ mn10300-tdep.c 3 Sep 2005 01:02:48 -0000
> @@ -937,6 +937,37 @@ mn10300_push_dummy_call (struct gdbarch
> return sp;
> }
>
> +/* If DWARF2 is a register number appearing in Dwarf2 debug info, then
> + mn10300_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum (DWARF2) is the corresponding GDB
> + register number. Why don't Dwarf2 and GDB use the same numbering?
> + Who knows? But since people have object files lying around with
> + the existing Dwarf2 numbering, and other people have written stubs
> + to work with the existing GDB, neither of them can change. So we
> + just have to cope. */
> +static int
> +mn10300_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum (int dwarf2)
> +{
> + /* This table is supposed to be shaped like the REGISTER_NAMES
> + initializer in gcc/config/mn10300/mn10300.h. Registers which
> + appear in GCC's numbering, but have no counterpart in GDB's
> + world, are marked with a -1. */
> + static int dwarf2_to_gdb[] = {
> + 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, -1, 8,
> + 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
> + 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
> + 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
> + 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
> + 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
> + };
> +
> + if (dwarf2 < 0
> + || dwarf2 >= (sizeof (dwarf2_to_gdb) / sizeof (dwarf2_to_gdb[0]))
> + || dwarf2_to_gdb[dwarf2] == -1)
> + internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__,
> + "bogus register number in debug info: %d", dwarf2);
> +
> + return dwarf2_to_gdb[dwarf2];
> +}
Could you use ARRAY_SIZE here? And that string should be i18n'd. or
perhaps it's better to use gdb_assert(); saves the translators some
work ;-).
Hmm, isn't an internal error actually inappropriate here? The
condition could be triggered by bogus debug info, couldn't it? That
should be handled more graceful.
Mark