From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Nick Duffek , insight@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: Register group proposal Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:28:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A942475.120CB30E@cygnus.com> References: <200102210504.f1L54xJ01509@rtl.cygnus.com> <3A9419DE.9B502F9D@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00281.html Oops. If you think you're seeing double it is because you are :-( The below was a draft that I didn't mean to send. I broke this message into two separate posts (they addressed separate issues) only to then sent this one instead of the other two. Could I suggest responding to the other two threads instead. sorry, Andrew Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Nick Duffek wrote: > > > > On an architecture with a large register set, GDBtk's register window can > > be difficult to read and slow to update. Users can customize the window > > to hide individual registers, but that's a tedious procedure. > > Much thanks for posting this. It is at a level that makes discussion > easy. > > > Therefore, users would benefit from being able to switch easily between > > register subsets. > [...] > > Whoever ports GDB to a particular architecture is likely to have a good > > idea of what register groupings would be useful. > > I definitly agree with the idea. I've several generic and some specific > thoughts. > > -- > > Per other e-mail. I think this interface is bound to the ``frame''. It > is the frame, and not regcache, that determines the current > architecture. With that in mind, I suspect that the implementation > would end up looking like: . . . .