This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch, arm] Consistent display of registers in corefile


On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 06:00:32PM +0800, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 10:57 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:43:15PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> I would suspect that the proper thing to do would be to align the
> >> tdesc with the code instead of the other way around.  The arm-core.xml
> >> file seems to underspecify things by omitting the type=xxx clause on
> >> many registers.  Whoever wrote arm_register_type() at least had to
> >> make a conscious decision about the signedness of the type used for
> >> the general purpose registers.
> > 
> > Yeah, I agree.  It was probably my mistake.
> > 
> 
> In this new patch, 'type="uint32"' is added for registers from r0 to r12
> except r11.  r11 is 'type="data_ptr"'.  features/arm*.c files are
> regenerated by Makefile.  Regression tested along with the other patch
> arm_fps_group.patch on armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi, "corefile restored
> general registers" failure in gdb.base/gcore.exp goes away.  Is it OK
> for GDB mainline?

Please use uint32 for r11 also.  It's sometimes the frame pointer, but
that's not required and it may have any arbitrary data in it.

Otherwise OK.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]