From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26672 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 23:07:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26541 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 23:07:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 23:07:17 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA07670; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:07:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 93A6D112E3; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:06:55 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15476.11279.326712.932158@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:07:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] ppc-linux-nat.c AltiVec regs ptrace In-Reply-To: <20020220171519.A28726@nevyn.them.org> References: <15476.1308.919907.110811@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220153946.A24439@nevyn.them.org> <15476.4080.303671.894065@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220171519.A28726@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2 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? :) > No it was actually Kevin, I was thinking of. > > > > > +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 define GETVRREGS (not that we should be > including that header, of course). [ 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