"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Richard Sandiford > <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> As far as the dwarf2out.c bits go, I think the original dbx_reg_number >> assert: >> >> gcc_assert (regno != INVALID_REGNUM); >> >> should become: >> >> gcc_assert (regno != INVALID_REGNUM && regno != IGNORED_DWARF_REGNUM); >> >> since it's the caller's job to handle this case. >> > > I don't think if it will work since dbx_reg_number is called > to get debug register number and the register is ignored > if its return value is IGNORED_DWARF_REGNUM.
Er, quite. What was I thinking? So please ignore that stupid suggestion. The comments about the MIPS parts still stand of course. Richard
