From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19169 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 22:15:24 -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 18989 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 22:15:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 22:15:19 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16df1D-0007ZG-00; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:15:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] ppc-linux-nat.c AltiVec regs ptrace Message-ID: <20020220171519.A28726@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <15476.1308.919907.110811@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220153946.A24439@nevyn.them.org> <15476.4080.303671.894065@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15476.4080.303671.894065@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00565.txt.bz2 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? :) > > > +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 define GETVRREGS (not that we should be including that header, of course). [ 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