This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH]: Fixes for pseudo regs support
- To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Fixes for pseudo regs support
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:17:58 -0800
- CC: Stephane Carrez <Stephane dot Carrez at worldnet dot fr>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <39A5B4A7.8261D654@worldnet.fr> <3A06ACF1.AA32DF9C@cygnus.com> <3A1AFD72.1CA9B1AB@worldnet.fr> <1001122023710.ZM23671@ocotillo.lan>
Kevin Buettner wrote:
>
> On Nov 21, 11:55pm, Stephane Carrez wrote:
>
> > Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >
> > > A pseudo register can't lie in memory as it is constructed from one or
> > > more real registers. The frame info code needs to be able to construct,
> > > on the fly, a pseudo register from a combination of both saved registers
> > > and real registers.
> >
> > Ok. So, I'm back to my initial problem now.
>
> My apologies for coming to this discussion late, but I had this
> problem too on the IA-64 in which some of the registers (the so
> called stacked registers) are only obtainable from memory.
>
> The way that I approached it (which predates the pseudo register
> support) is to define ia64_get_saved_register() to do, umm,
> interesting things. (There were other registers too which
> required special attention.)
>
> I would like to convert this code to use pseudo registers though some
> day. FWIW, I think it should be possible to define pseudo registers
> which interogate memory to get/set their values.
I see no reason why this should be a problem.
But I don't fully understand Andrews frame-save concerns,
so he may grok something that I don't...