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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

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>

>  > > +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.

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

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.

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