From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, insight@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Register group proposal
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:16:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A953AE8.3EFB6CE4@cygnus.com>
References: <3A942228.C9E05495@cygnus.com> <200102221326.f1MDQJc02778@rtl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00296.html

Nick Duffek wrote:

> >Even if it isn't made an object could I suggest the convention of a
> >...._REGGROUP() be adopted to all methods that return a register group.
> 
> Yes, that's helpful for supporting Stephane's idea of using register
> groups for purposes other than display, e.g. fetching and storing.

Just FYI,

Since REGGROUP is bound to a frame and _not_ the raw register cache, it
wouldn't be directly applicable to what Stephane was suggesting.

For an existing example of this unfortunate confusion of layers (and how
it goes wrong) have a look at RAW_REGISTER_BYTES() and how code much of
the code manipulating a frame's cooked/pseudo registers (incorrectly)
uses it.

enjoy,
	Andrew