Unreviewed patches
Elena Zannoni
ezannoni@redhat.com
Mon Aug 5 06:47:00 GMT 2002
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
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list