This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: ARM register names...
- To: George France <france at crl dot dec dot com>
- Subject: Re: ARM register names...
- From: Scott Bambrough <scottb at netwinder dot org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:08:22 -0400
- CC: binutils mailing list <binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at cygnus dot com>
- Organization: Rebel.com
- References: <D1674834F25BD3118B3208002BB90CD450DDF4@yen.crl.dec.com>
George France wrote:
>
> You may find it a little odd but having register dumps that match the ARM
> documentation is more useful in my humble opinion than gcc standard.
Why? By far the most common register set used in my experience is the one gcc
uses. I find it annoying to do a dump, and then have the function prologues,
PLT tables all look different than their original source. When I look at a
frame pointer, I want it to be called fp, not r11.
The only difference between the standard set and the gcc is {r10, r11, r12} =
{sl, fp, ip}. Under Linux I know that the got pointer is in sl, fp is the frame
pointer and ip is a scratch register, most commonly used in function prologues.
Having these switched makes life difficult for me, and others here.
Finally these are GNU tools. They should be consistent in this regard across
binutils, gcc, gdb etc...
However, I'm a reasonable guy. If people hate this idea I won't commit it.
Comments?
Scott
--
Scott Bambrough - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM http://www.rebel.com
NetWinder http://www.netwinder.org