Re: [RFA] New register definition interface

[Nick Duffek <nsd at redhat dot com>]

On 17-Jan-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>> That looks good to me.  It's very similar to what regs.c does, except that
>> it calls set_gdbarch_register_list() instead of set_gdbarch_data().

>The difference is that the data is kept private to the regs.c file
>(those interfaces again).  It isn't possible for external code to go
>grubbing around in internals when you're not looking.

Yes.  I wrote:

>I can deal with the memory waste by:
>
>  1. ignoring it;
>  2. using regs.c's approach with e.g. CLIREGS_INTERNAL instead of
>     REGISTER_LIST;
>  3. implementing set_gdbarch_data().
>
>I'd prefer 2 or 3.  Do you have a preference?

If I understand correctly, you're expressing a preference for 3.  I'll
look into implementing that.

On 17-Jan-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>The nice thing about REGISTER_MODULE_INSTALLED_P() is that it is so
>informative that the caller can conclude nothing about the actual
>module.  This is a good thing :-)

I don't understand whether that means "regcache.c is active" or "regs.c is
active".  I'd rather use REGCACHE_MODULE_ACTIVE_P(), okay?

Nick