Re: assertion failure in regcache.c

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > > Looks like you're right.  If I update to 2003-05-04 it's fine, but after
 > > that it blows up.  Seems to only be a problem for sh4 though.  Any
 > > suggestions as to what might be breaking this?  Here's the output of maint
 > > print registers.
 > 
 > >  r0b1         51   51    204       4  int
 > >  r1b1         52   52    208       4  int
 > >  r2b1         53   53    212       4  int
 > >  r3b1         54   54    216       4  int
 > >  r4b1         55   55    220       4  int
 > >  r5b1         56   56    224       4  int
 > >  r6b1         57   57    228       4  int
 > >  r7b1         58   58    232       4  int
 > >  dr0          59    0    236*1     8  double
 > >  dr2          60    1    244*1     8  double
 > >  dr4          61    2    252*1     8  double
 > >  dr6          62    3    260*1     8  double
 > >  dr8          63    4    268*1     8  double
 > >  dr10         64    5    276*1     8  double
 > >  dr12         65    6    284*1     8  double
 > >  dr14         66    7    292*1     8  double
 > >  fv0          67    8    300*1    16  *2
 > >  fv4          68    9    316*1    16  *2
 > >  fv8          69   10    332*1    16  *2
 > >  fv12         70   11    348*1    16  *2
 > > *1: Inconsistent register offsets.
 > > *2: Register type's name NULL.
 > 
 > I'd start with the obvious thing - a simple tipo in the SH4 register 
 > byte function.  The code was written long before these sanity checks 
 > were added and ``the old way'' makes it very hard to notice that the 
 > values are skewed.
 > 
 > Andrew
 > 


yes, look at sh_sh4_register_byte. Maybe FV0_REGNUM or FV_LAST_REGNUM
are not set correctly or fv_reg_base_num does something wrong. These
registers with (*1) are pseudo registers, so it's easy that the
calculations could have been screwed up.


elena