Re: [1/2] C-SKY Port

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 2018-10-23 08:48, Hafiz Abid Qadeer wrote:
>> A quick investigation shows it's because some raw registers are not in 
>> the
>> save reggroup.  So csky should probably be added to that big if in the 
>> test:
>> 
>> 	  if (bfd_arch == bfd_arch_frv || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_h8300
>> 	      || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_m32c || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_sh
>> 	      || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_alpha || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_v850
>> 	      || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_msp430 || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_mep
>> 	      || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_mips || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_v850_rh850
>> 	      || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_tic6x || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_mn10300
>> 	      || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_rl78 || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_score
>> 	      || bfd_arch == bfd_arch_riscv)
>> 	    {
>> 	      /* Raw registers.  If raw registers are not in save_reggroup,
>> 		 their status are unknown.  */
>> 	      if (gdbarch_register_reggroup_p (gdbarch, regnum, 
>> save_reggroup))
>> 		SELF_CHECK (status == REG_VALID);
>> 	      else
>> 		SELF_CHECK (status == REG_UNKNOWN);
>> 	    }
>> 	  else
>> 	    SELF_CHECK (status == REG_VALID);
>> 
> 
> When I was reviewing the test results for csky, I saw this fail in
> unittest.exp and fixed it by adding csky to the big if list as you
> mentioned above. Somehow I missed that patch when upstreaming the port.
> So if you are happy with that change then I will push it.

Yes please, consider it pre-approved.  We can take a look at removing 
the big list laster.

Thanks,

Simon