Re: [RFA] New register definition interface

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Nick Duffek wrote:
> 
> On 13-Jan-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >I'm confused.  Your saying that the CLI changes depend on regs.c?
> 
> Yes.

I think this is wrong then.  It should be possible to just tweek an
existing target and have it make use of of your new info-registers code.

A quick glance suggests that the code is relying on register attribue
information not currently available through the existing register
interface.  All that hopefully needs to be done is for that interface to
be formally specified (added to gdbarch?).

You may even find a willing volunteer to do the work.

> >It should be possible to code the cli so that it doesn't specificly
> >depend on regs.c.
> 
> It is possible.  I'll look into changing that, but for now, can it be
> committed without that modification?  This is an internal implementation
> issue that won't affect clients of either module, and I'd really like to
> make the interface available.

Unfortunatly the problem isn't an internal implementation issue.  Rather
it is that the CLI is making assumptions about unpublished (as in not in
gdbarch) reg interfaces.

	Andrew