From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-15716-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30543 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 22:25:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30536 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 22:25:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 22:25:16 -0000
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA14644;
	Fri, 17 May 2002 15:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469)
	id 69D0E10FC9; Fri, 17 May 2002 18:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15589.33572.202434.201957@localhost.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:25:00 -0000
To: "Martin M. Hunt" <hunt@redhat.com>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] SSE register type fix
In-Reply-To: <200205171318.53629.hunt@redhat.com>
References: <200205171228.09802.hunt@redhat.com>
	<15589.24050.270161.515964@localhost.redhat.com>
	<200205171318.53629.hunt@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00764.txt.bz2

Martin M. Hunt writes:
 > On Friday 17 May 2002 12:45 pm, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > 
 > > However... can we now remove the old machinery for creating the old
 > > style types? The v4si, v2si, etc types? I think the sse regs were the
 > > only ones using it.
 > 
 > There is still x86-64-tdep.c. 
 > 

Ah, too bad.

 > > However #2... what's the 'i' in vec128i for? Intel? I would think that 'i'
 > > would be more like 'integer', i.e. vectors w/o floating point variants.
 > > Maybe we need a new naming scheme. Groan.
 > 
 > vec128SSE2 vec128_sse2 
 > 

I prefer the second form.  But then, the altivec type should become
vec128_altivec. But it couldn't be reused by other targets if
needed.  Messy. Maybe just have a gigantic vec128 union with all the
possible combinations? Don't know. 

Elena


 > -- 
 > Martin Hunt
 > GDB Engineer
 > Red Hat, Inc.