From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15023 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2005 07:28:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 15015 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2005 07:28:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ip127.bb146.pacific.net.hk (HELO stl.com.hk) (202.64.146.127) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 07:27:59 +0000 Received: from 221.196.17.210.dyn.pacific.net.hk ([210.17.196.221] helo=[192.168.1.10]) by stl.com.hk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50) id 1EfuNt-0000EI-JU; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:22:09 +0800 Message-ID: <43880E6B.8060901@tausq.org> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:23:00 -0000 From: Randolph Chung User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com CC: John David Anglin , Joel Brobecker Subject: Register numbers on hppa64 References: <200511260253.jAQ2rP7Z021130@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200511260253.jAQ2rP7Z021130@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00572.txt.bz2 OK, this is a mess....:) Apparently we now have at least three different register numbering schemes for hppa64: 1) gcc "dbx": 0-31: r0-r31 72-135: fr0-fr31 (odd numbers are not used) 60: sar 2) gcc dwarf frame: unity mapping, so: 0-31: r0-r31 32-59: fr4-fr31 60: sar 3) gdb 0-31: r0-r31 32-63: sar, pcoqh, pcsqh, other "special" registers 64-95: fr0-fr31 4) HP compilers ??? Joel, does your GNAT C compiler output something different from the above? :-) Obviously this will not work.... The gdb numbering scheme seems to be there for a long time. I don't know if this is the way HP numbers registers in their debug format. Does anybody have a pointer to this information? I see that in late 2003/early 2004 there was a discussion about archs with mismatched "dbx register numbers" vs "dwarf CFI register numbers" on gcc@gcc.gnu.org and gdb-patches@gcc.gnu.org. Back then the discussion was about ppc64, although i was not quite sure what was the conclusion of those discussions. hppa64 is in a similar situation. Any comments or suggestions on how to sort this out? Should I just change gdb to match what gcc outputs? Should we change gcc to match what gdb expects? (safer?) randolph