From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 984 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 15:07:28 -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 977 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 15:07:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 15:07:27 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17kRpa-0006Bk-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:07:38 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17kQuQ-000802-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:08:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michal Ludvig Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64 Message-ID: <20020829150833.GA29973@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michal Ludvig , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3CC42DA0.9070906@suse.cz> <3D6BF1D5.70409@ges.redhat.com> <3D6E231D.8060906@suse.cz> <20020829142120.GA5176@nevyn.them.org> <3D6E3666.7070309@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6E3666.7070309@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00976.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 04:57:42PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >Well, actually, I like it. > > Wow! That's a surprise! :-))) > > >Some textual changes and comments: > > Thanks, I'm not a native speaker ;-) > > >>+ builtin_type_i386_eflags = > >>+ init_flags_type (32 /* EFLAGS_LENGTH */, > >>+ "__i386_eflags", (struct objfile *) NULL); > >>+ add_flag_name (builtin_type_i386_eflags, 0, "CF"); > >>+ builtin_type_simd_mxcsr = > >>+ init_flags_type (32 /* EFLAGS_LENGTH */, > >>+ "__simd_mxcsr", (struct objfile *) NULL); > >>+ add_flag_name (builtin_type_simd_mxcsr, 0, "IE"); > > Do these really need to be in common code? That's gross. Yes, I know > > a whole lot of others are, but those are all floatformats or standard > > vectors. > > This should be in i386-tdep.c. > > I don't compile i386-tdep.c for x86-64. Should I duplicate the code for > x86-64 or better leave it here to have it only once? Hmm, there's already some common files between the ports; there should be another, I think. I don't want something as i386-specific as this anywhere near gdbtypes.c. How about i386-common-tdep.c or something like that? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer