On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Franck Jullien <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/6/13 Andreas Fritiofson <[email protected]>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:21 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -enum reg_group {
>>> - REG_GROUP_GENERAL,
>>> - REG_GROUP_FLOAT,
>>> - REG_GROUP_VECTOR,
>>> -};
>>> -
>>> struct reg_feature {
>>> const char *name;
>>> };
>>> @@ -129,7 +123,7 @@ struct reg {
>>> bool valid;
>>> uint32_t size;
>>> struct reg_data_type *reg_data_type;
>>> - enum reg_group group;
>>> + const char *group;
>>>
>>
>> Why change reg_group from enum to string? According to gdb docs it can
>> only take one of those three values.
>>
>> /Andreas
>>
>
> Because in the openrisc port of GDB, we add the possibility to use
> arbitrary strings.
>
The reason I favor an enum is that you shouldn't need to read GDB docs to
find out the valid strings when you write a target implementation. But, OK,
if you allow any string there I can see the point.
Although I wonder if you're not misusing what register groups was intended
for. Why do you need arbitrary groups?
/Andreas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
OpenOCD-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
