From:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 28 Jul 2001 20:05:08 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: [kettenis AT wins DOT uva DOT nl: Re: i386 register numbering]
Message-ID:	<3B631AF4.29711.7DE25B@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<200107281830.OAA31402@delorie.com>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Per the attached, it sounds like GCC in its DJGPP port uses a register
> naming scheme for DWARF2 that is different from other popular targets.

I'd rather use the same scheme as everyone else. Why be incompatible when you don't have to?

I think GCC can be changed to use the same scheme for dwarf2 as everyone else. This (untested) 
addition to gcc's djgpp.h should do the trick:

#undef DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER
#define DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER(n) \
  ((write_symbols == DWARF2_DEBUG) ? svr4_dbx_register_map[n] : dbx_register_map[n])

- Raw text -