Re: [RFA] ppc-linux-nat.c AltiVec regs ptrace

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > Right will fix. [I had an ongoing bet :-)]
 > 
 > What, whether Andrew would get to you before I did? :)
 > <duck and run>

No it was actually Kevin, I was thinking of.
<duck and run myself>

 > 
 > >  > > +int have_ptrace_getvrregs
 > >  > > +#ifdef HAVE_PTRACE_GETFPXREGS
 > >  > > +     = 1;
 > >  > > +#else
 > >  > > +     = 0;
 > >  > > +#endif
 > >  > > +
 > >  > 
 > >  > Huh?  You defined GETVRREGS unconditionally above.  GETFPXREGS has no
 > >  > place in this file, does it?  Or do the headers define GETFPXREGS?
 > >  > You also continue this confusion all the way down the patch.
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > > The glibc headers define GETFPXREGS, and that's what we test for in
 > > the configury.  But we are not dealing with floating point registers
 > > here, so I used the 'correct' name where I could.  It would be more
 > > confusing to talk about FPX regs while instead there are none.
 > > I explained this in the comments.
 > > 
 > > I guess I can do the following if it helps.
 > > #ifdef HAVE_PTRACE_GETFPXREGS
 > > #define HAVE_PTRACE_GETVRREGS
 > > 
 > > Whatever I end up using it's partially going to be a lie.  I would
 > > prefer using the VRREGS nomenclature where relevant, though.
 > 
 > I'm confused.

Yeah, you are not the only one.

 > 
 > On i386, glibc defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS.  On PowerPC, in current FSF
 > glibc, sys/ptrace.h does not define anything along these lines at all. 

OK, I have downloaded glibc 2.2.5, and sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h
defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS.

Then on my system, I have /usr/include/sys/ptrace.h which also defines it.
But I think I have an older version of glibc installed.

What I am not understanding is where the installed file comes from, is
it the same as sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h?

 > The kernel <asm/ptrace.h> define GETVRREGS (not that we should be
 > including that header, of course).  [<sys/ptrace.h> is an
 > architecture-specific header, which may not have been apparent.]
 > 

Right. I didn't rely on it.

 > If there are outstanding patches to glibc, which defines
 > PTRACE_GETFPXREGS on PowerPC, then they are still mutable.  They should
 > be updated to a reasonable value.
 > 

I think that rather than oustanding patches we may have older versions.

I see that in glibc2.2.5 the file
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/sys/ptrace.h
doesn't use the values 18 and 19.

If I determine that the version of glibc I have used is obsolete, then
I can clean that up. Let me have a look.


Elena


 > -- 
 > Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
 > MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer