Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and assurity

[paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com>]

Hi Hui,
Ok fine. I try to understand and incorporate your review comments.
I am sending the new patch in next mail.
Regards,
Oza.

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and assurity
> To: "paawan oza" <paawan1982@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Pedro Alves" <pedro@codesourcery.com>, "Mark Kettenis" <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 7:31 AM
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 23:59, paawan
> oza<paawan1982@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hui,
> >
> > As I clarified earlier,
> > these registers are already supported and extended by
> gdb much before this patch.
> > all floating point registers are already supported by
> gdb
> > (info floats/info all-registers command gives it)
> >
> > My aim is : only to make sure that whenever any
> floating point insn gets executed, we record the registers
> > (no matter whether it is %st(n) or FCTRL or FTAG or
> FSTATUS)
> > there are insns
> > e.g. 'ffree' changes FTAG register, so we must record
> it.
> >
> > Do you mean to say that we should remove it from just
> enumaration ?
> > but anyway we need to record those registers.
> >
> 
> You are working on make prec x86 support fp insn, not to
> extend the fp
> function of i386 (If you want, you can make a special patch
> for it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch :
> with more testing and assurity
> >> To: "paawan oza" <paawan1982@yahoo.com>,
> "Pedro Alves" <pedro@codesourcery.com>,
> "Mark Kettenis" <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>,
> "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>
> >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 11:23 AM
> >> About this patch, I say my idea
> >> again, I told in
> >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00014.html
> >> @@ -145,7 +145,22 @@
> >>    I386_ES_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %es */
> >>    I386_FS_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %fs */
> >>    I386_GS_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %gs */
> >> -  I386_ST0_REGNUM
> >>     /* %st(0) */
> >> +  I386_ST0_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(0) */
> >> +  I386_ST1_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(1) */
> >> +  I386_ST2_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(2) */
> >> +  I386_ST3_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(3) */
> >> +  I386_ST4_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(4) */
> >> +  I386_ST5_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(5) */
> >> +  I386_ST6_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(6) */
> >> +  I386_ST7_REGNUM,
> >>     /* %st(7) */
> >> +  I386_FCTRL,
> >>     /* floating point env regs : FCTRL-FOP
> >> */
> >> +  I386_FSTAT,
> >> +  I386_FTAG,
> >>
> >> +  I386_FISEG,
> >> +  I386_FIOFF,
> >> +  I386_FOSEG,
> >> +  I386_FOOFF,
> >> +  I386_FOP
> >>  };
> >>
> >> You are working on make prec x86 support fp insn,
> not to
> >> extend the fp
> >> function of i386 (If you want, you can make a
> special patch
> >> for it).
> >>
> >> Hui
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 23:05, paawan oza<paawan1982@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> > As I am submitting the patch for the first
> time, I am
> >> not much aware of gdb test suite.
> >> > would you please guide me about how I can put
> the
> >> things in the testsuite ?
> >> > is it the testsuite which comes along with
> the gdb
> >> source ?
> >> > gdb\testsuite\gdb.base ??
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Oza.
> >> >
> >> > --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> >> >> Subject: Re:
> i386.record.floating.point.patch :
> >> with more testing and assurity
> >> >> To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >> >> Cc: "paawan oza" <paawan1982@yahoo.com>,
> >> teawater@gmail.com
> >> >> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 7:09 PM
> >> >> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 14:23:30,
> >> >> paawan oza wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > As suggested by Hui,
> >> >> > > I have come up with more
> detailed and
> >> granular
> >> >> test case
> >> >> > > for the patch which I had
> submitted last
> >> week.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you please consider migrating that
> test into
> >> the
> >> >> testsuite?
> >> >> You've gone through the trouble of
> writing tests
> >> to make
> >> >> sure
> >> >> the features work now --- putting it in
> the
> >> testsuite means
> >> >> we
> >> >> have an automatic-ish means to check that
> it
> >> doesn't get
> >> >> inadvertently broken in the future.  The
> way it
> >> is,
> >> >> when your
> >> >> code gets in, the test will probably end
> up lost
> >> in the
> >> >> archives.
> >> >> We wouldn't want that, would we?  :-) 
> Having
> >> >> auto-tests, also helps
> >> >> the person doing the review in confirming
> things
> >> work as
> >> >> expected (without much effort).
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Pedro Alves
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>