+/* If DWARF2 is a register number appearing in Dwarf2 debug info, then
+ mn10300_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum (DWARF2) is the corresponding GDB
+ register number. Why don't Dwarf2 and GDB use the same numbering?
+ Who knows? But since people have object files lying around with
+ the existing Dwarf2 numbering, and other people have written stubs
+ to work with the existing GDB, neither of them can change. So we
+ just have to cope. */
+static int
+mn10300_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum (int dwarf2)
+{
+ /* This table is supposed to be shaped like the REGISTER_NAMES
+ initializer in gcc/config/mn10300/mn10300.h. Registers which
+ appear in GCC's numbering, but have no counterpart in GDB's
+ world, are marked with a -1. */
+ static int dwarf2_to_gdb[] = {
+ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, -1, 8,
+ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
+ };
+ int gdb;
+
+ if (dwarf2 < 0
+ || dwarf2 >= (sizeof (dwarf2_to_gdb) / sizeof (dwarf2_to_gdb[0]))
+ || dwarf2_to_gdb[dwarf2] == -1)
+ internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__,
+ "bogus register number in debug info: %d", dwarf2);
+
+ return dwarf2_to_gdb[dwarf2];
+}
+