Re: assertion failure in regcache.c

["Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>]

> Kris Warkentin writes:
>  > Interesting.  If I go through sh-tdep.c and comment out all the
>  > 'set_gdbarch_register_byte(blah)' calls, it works.  Are there any
potential
>  > negative implications of this or can we just trust regcache to do it's
job?
>  >
>
> Oh my. I have fainted.  It works?  :-) You mean all that pseudo
> register stuff written 2+ years back still works with all the register
> changes?  I really think that working on gdb is just like the Boston
> Big Dig.
>
> What exactly do you mean by it works?  Testsuite failures approach
> acceptable levels?  This is only sh4, right? There are so many variants
> to test. The really scary one would be sh64.

By 'works', I mean, "I didn't choke on the assertion and I managed to
successfully debug a program and look at registers."  That's probably not
the definitive test by any stretch but it's better than gdb dumping core.
The fact of the matter is, I only care about sh4 so I would be happy with
getting rid of just the sh4_register_byte thing and letting other sh
concerned parties deal with their versions themselves.  I'll bet you dimes
to donuts that every other sh target will have this problem with the head
branch too.

If you guys can suggest some other work that I might be able to do to fix
this for everyone in a nice way I might be able to help out though since
it's certainly in my interest to have sh working on the head.

cheers,

Kris