From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>
Cc: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com, insight@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Register group proposal
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:23:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A953C86.5B2044DB@cygnus.com>
References: <3A942228.C9E05495@cygnus.com> <200102221326.f1MDQJc02778@rtl.cygnus.com> <3A95234D.C3C506FD@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg00206.html

Fernando Nasser wrote:
> 
> Nick Duffek wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm, is there a case when ``info all-registers'' doesn't display all the
> > >registers?
> >
> 
> I don't think control register or things like PentiumIII  MSR  (Model
> Specific Registers) should be printed even in info all-registers.
> 
> I know the name becomes inappropriate, but what the user expect is "all
> user registers", things that are part of the context like the GP and FP
> registers plus PC, SP, FP, PSW...

Ah, thanks.  This provides a defintion that is independant of the way
registers are currently implemented.

	Andrew