Re: [RFA/RFC] mips tracepoint: fix Bug 12013

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 23:42, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:15:59 +0800
> Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > It is a common trick to return an empty register name for a (raw)
>> > register to hide the register from the user. __So I don't think this
>> > diff is ok, since the goal obviously is to hide the raw registers in
>> > mips in favour of the pseudo registers.
>>
>> Could you tell me what this hide for? ?I didn't find who get some
>> advantage form this part?
>
> I agree with Mark. ?We do not want to expose the MIPS raw registers
> directly to the user.
>
> It is possible to debug a 64-bit device using a 32-bit programming
> model. ?In such instances, the raw registers are configured to be
> 64-bits wide, while the pseudo registers are configured to be 32-bits
> wide. ?The registers that the user sees - the pseudo registers - match
> the user's expectations given the programming model being used.

Thanks.  Do you think I can add a special name for these raw registers
then other part can use this raw register if need.

Thanks,
Hui

>
> Your patch exposes the raw registers in such a way that errant code
> (within GDB) could present the user with an inconsistent view of the
> registers. ?This, in my opinion, is not desirable.
>
> Please revert your patch and, in the future, wait until a consensus is
> achieved before comitting your work.
>
> Kevin
>