Could/should GDB/MI -data-list-register-names return ABI rather than canonical names?

[TommyMurphyTM1234]

See also:

• https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/sw-dev/jCDmiB6Vfrk
• GDB/MI -data-list-register-names returns 4162 extraneous blank reg names #71

As the subject says - could/should GDB/MI -data-list-register-names return ABI rather than canonical names for some or all of integer regs. FP regs and CSRs - either automatically or as a configurable option?

Are there situations in which some users want to see "raw" canonical names?
Are there situations in which other ABIs/register naming conventions might be used?
Shouldn't GDB/MI -data-list-register-names and the likes of info registers/info all-registers generate consistent output (they don't right now)?
If ABI names are used then might it also be necessary to cater for targets adhering to different versions of the (draft) priv spec - e.g. 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.10 and provide a command to tell GDB which priv spec should apply?
Are there other issues to consider?

If you need any more info please let me know.
Thanks
Tommy

[ilg-ul]

riscv-collab/riscv-openocd#93