From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26702 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 20:39:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26676 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 20:39:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 20:39:45 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14616; Fri, 23 May 2003 16:35:26 -0400 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA25970; Fri, 23 May 2003 16:39:44 -0400 Message-ID: <12c401c3216b$74bda9f0$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Elena Zannoni" Cc: "Andrew Cagney" , "Elena Zannoni" , "Gdb@Sources.Redhat.Com" References: <0cd101c31fc1$b589c500$0202040a@catdog><3ECCED6E.9060906@redhat.com><0fb801c32095$785e5590$0202040a@catdog><3ECD2378.1040704@redhat.com><16077.19191.135513.118401@localhost.redhat.com><11d801c32151$c37bbd80$0202040a@catdog><16078.26357.742030.751293@localhost.redhat.com><3ECE7AAE.7060308@redhat.com><12a301c32168$de9e5660$0202040a@catdog> <16078.34483.843620.330431@localhost.redhat.com> Subject: Re: assertion failure in regcache.c Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 20:39:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 > 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