This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 4/4] Don't throw an error in 'info registers' for unavailable MIPS GP registers.
- From: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd dot org>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at imgtec dot com>, Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 12:25:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Don't throw an error in 'info registers' for unavailable MIPS GP registers.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20170412183727.22483-1-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <email@example.com> <1615766.4Mx9RcRn3g@ralph.baldwin.cx>
On Friday, April 28, 2017 09:48:50 AM John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 02:51:41 PM Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On 04/27/2017 08:37 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > >
> > >>> The use of angle brackets with the latter variant is consistent with other
> > >>> targets, so I might have just a slight preference for it, but I'll be
> > >>> happy to accept input from other people.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, I'd find using anything but <unavailable> when that's what
> > >> GDB means to be making the port be gratuitously different.
> > >> "<unavailable>" always means the same thing in gdb -- gdb knows
> > >> the value materially exists, but it can't get at it for some
> > >> reason (e.g., ptrace does not expose it, a core dump is trimmed, value
> > >> not collect in a trace frame, etc.).
> > >
> > > If you think keeping the word the same across ports is essential, then
> > > `<unavl>' would be my second choice, at some aesthetical cost.
> > I'm not sure that trying to come up with short
> > variants of these special values manually is the best option.
> > Another output you could see here is "<not saved>".
> > GDB prints that if GDB figures out the register is not saved
> > in a frame (or if the DWARF indicates that, via DW_CFA_undefined).
> Unfortunately, even "<not saved>" is too long for the 8 character field
> for a 32-bit register value. One perhaps simple option would be to always
> use the same table layout for 32-bit vs 64-bit (4 columns x 11 rows). It
> would mean doubling the lines that 'info registers' shows on 32-bit MIPS,
> but it would still fit in 24 lines and would probably simplify the
> However, as you note, the primary goal is removing the error(), and I can
> live with any format that is readable.
Any other thoughts on "<absent>" vs "<unavl>" vs always using the 64-bit
table layout vs <insert other option here>?