We've ran into the same issue when we were adding the "dynamic register size" fields, which is mips thing. I think we need a more flexible way of specifying the register context structs (constexpr constructors?) which will not suffer from these issues.
On 14 July 2017 at 16:39, Tatyana Krasnukha <tatyana.krasnu...@synopsys.com> wrote: > Trying to add new field to RegisterInfo I ran into the problem that it > requires modifying all hardcoded register infos (for each target's ABI and > RegisterContext), despite almost all targets never need this field. Another > decision is to add a set with such register names into DynamicRegisterInfo > and skip restoring of a register if it exists in this set. This solution > works for me as needed and it seems less invasive in terms of other targets. > I can prepare a patch if you'll consider it useful. If you're not planning to upstream any of your changes that depend on this, then I think this patch is not really needed/useful for us. If yes, then I suggest you put it up for review, and we'll need to have a (possibly longer) discussion about whether this is the right way to implement that. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
