This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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] |
Hi Jeff,
Sorry for taking so long on your patch...
On Aug 8, 1:32pm, J. Johnston wrote:
@@ -113,18 +120,18 @@ "r8", "r9", "r10", "r11", "r12", "r13", "r14", "r15", "r16", "r17", "r18", "r19", "r20", "r21", "r22", "r23", "r24", "r25", "r26", "r27", "r28", "r29", "r30", "r31", - "r32", "r33", "r34", "r35", "r36", "r37", "r38", "r39", - "r40", "r41", "r42", "r43", "r44", "r45", "r46", "r47", - "r48", "r49", "r50", "r51", "r52", "r53", "r54", "r55", - "r56", "r57", "r58", "r59", "r60", "r61", "r62", "r63", - "r64", "r65", "r66", "r67", "r68", "r69", "r70", "r71", - "r72", "r73", "r74", "r75", "r76", "r77", "r78", "r79", - "r80", "r81", "r82", "r83", "r84", "r85", "r86", "r87", - "r88", "r89", "r90", "r91", "r92", "r93", "r94", "r95", - "r96", "r97", "r98", "r99", "r100", "r101", "r102", "r103", - "r104", "r105", "r106", "r107", "r108", "r109", "r110", "r111", - "r112", "r113", "r114", "r115", "r116", "r117", "r118", "r119", - "r120", "r121", "r122", "r123", "r124", "r125", "r126", "r127", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", + "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "",
Okay, I see that you're turning r32-r127 and (not shown) p0-p64 into pseudo registers. Is there any reason to leave big "holes" in the register number space? I.e, why not just get rid of all of the empty strings above?
(Most of the time, the reason NOT to do this is because remote targets depend on the order. The only remote target that I'm aware of is gdbserver, and I'm not particularly worried about breaking compatibility.)
If I'm not mistaken, removing these holes will somewhat decrease the size of struct ia64_frame_cache:
+struct ia64_frame_cache +{ ... + /* Saved registers. */ + CORE_ADDR saved_regs[NUM_IA64_RAW_REGS]; + +};
Actually, number of real raw registers went down to the last non-pseudo register anyway. My preference regarding renumbering registers would be to sync this up with gdbserver later.
Now with regards to struct ia64_frame_cache...
+struct ia64_frame_cache +{ + /* Base address. */ + CORE_ADDR base; + CORE_ADDR pc; + CORE_ADDR saved_sp;
Could you (better) document the above three fields?
....
Have you tested the nat bit related code in ia64_pseudo_register_read() and ia64_pseudo_register_write() ? My recollection is that my original code didn't handle the unat bits correctly. I was wondering if you had fixed this problem. (I'm curious about the other NaT bits too.)
Could you elaborate about what problems you think existed in the previous code?
Kevin
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |