Re: Unreviewed patches

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>]

Joern, I noticed that you checked in the patch anyway, even though
there was disagreement about adding another hardwired enumeration in
sh-tdep.c vs. using the tdep structure, like arm, ppc, etc do. I
apologize if my latest message to this thread wasn't clear enough, and
you thought it was an approval. I think the patch is basically fine,
except for the enum. Could you please fix it?

thanks
Elena


Joern Rennecke writes:
 > Andrew Cagney wrote:
 > > 
 > > >
 > > > I think the stashing of constants into the tdep structure is basically
 > > > wrong.  You separate the register names arrays from the literals
 > > > that describe their positions, and you replicate the literals
 > > > up to four times.  The tdep structure and the sh_gdbarch_init
 > > > function are so large that you have lost track of the things that
 > > > really belong in tdep, like sh_show_regs, skip_prologue_hard_way,
 > > > and do_pseudo_register.  If you look at other gdb ports, you'll
 > > > see that they put only variable stuff in tdep, and use enums
 > > > for constants.  The sh gdb register naming scheme also doesn't
 > > > scale well, the names are again duplicated multiple times.
 > > 
 > > Can i suggest comparing the SH with the MIPS or RS6000.
 > 
 > MIPS and RS6000 use varying register numbers for hardware registers
 > with identical name and function.  I suppose that is due to historical
 > accident?
 > 
 > On the SH, it makes sense to consider the floating point register
 > start number as variable; however, there are a lot more register
 > numbers that are constant:
 > the privileged mode registers of the SH1..SH4 are not replicated
 > in the SH5; the SH5 has other registers of its own for privileged
 > mode.  All the sh-dsp specific register are, well, sh-dsp specific,
 > and hence only the sh-dsp numbering applies.
 > 	
 > -- 
 > --------------------------
 > SuperH
 > 2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ
 > T:+44 1454 462330