This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Register group proposal
- To: Nick Duffek <nsd at redhat dot com>, insight at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, fnasser at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: Register group proposal
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:26:29 -0500
- References: <200102210504.f1L54xJ01509@rtl.cygnus.com> <3A9419DE.9B502F9D@cygnus.com>
Oops. If you think you're seeing double it is because you are :-(
The below was a draft that I didn't mean to send. I broke this message
into two separate posts (they addressed separate issues) only to then
sent this one instead of the other two.
Could I suggest responding to the other two threads instead.
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Nick Duffek wrote:
> > On an architecture with a large register set, GDBtk's register window can
> > be difficult to read and slow to update. Users can customize the window
> > to hide individual registers, but that's a tedious procedure.
> Much thanks for posting this. It is at a level that makes discussion
> > Therefore, users would benefit from being able to switch easily between
> > register subsets.
> > Whoever ports GDB to a particular architecture is likely to have a good
> > idea of what register groupings would be useful.
> I definitly agree with the idea. I've several generic and some specific
> Per other e-mail. I think this interface is bound to the ``frame''. It
> is the frame, and not regcache, that determines the current
> architecture. With that in mind, I suspect that the implementation
> would end up looking like: