From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1861 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2007 16:53:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 1853 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2007 16:53:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:53:17 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D9432C119 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:34:36 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l96GrETH2912398 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:53:14 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l96GrE83017992 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:53:14 -0300 Received: from hactar.local ([9.8.4.86]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l96GrDqA017987; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:53:14 -0300 Subject: Re: [rfc] XML files for PowerPC tdescs From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20071005163854.GB26041@caradoc.them.org> References: <20071005163854.GB26041@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:53:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1191689590.18959.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 12:38 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Here are the XML files that go along with my previous patch. These > were hand-written based on the information in rs6000-tdep.c's > "struct reg" arrays. Indeed, looks much more organized. :-) In rs6000.xml and powerpc-601.xml, you redefine the org.gnu.gdb.power.core and/or org.gnu.gdb.power.fpu features, instead of including power-core.xml and/or power-fpu.xml. I see that there are a few registers that are different in these "private definitions". Would it be worthwhile adding comments describing why they can't include power-{core,fpu}.xml? Also, these are more to satisfy my curiosity than anything else: The XML files are not under the GPL. What is the reason for this? And why use DTDs instead of XML Schemas? -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center