Re: RFC: s390x: correct core file register layout

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:48:16AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Jim Blandy wrote:
> > > 
> > > 2003-05-23  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > >         * s390-nat.c (supply_gregset, fill_gregset): On the s390x, the
> > >         elements of gregset_t are 64 bits each, but access registers
> > >         are still 32 bits, so they're packed two per gregset_t
> > >         element.  Unpack/pack them properly.
> > 
> > What sort of comment are you looking for?
> 
> Well, lewd ones, in particular.  But given the nature of the patch I
> wasn't expecting much along those lines, and would have settled for
> "this isn't the way we deal with native targets, idiot, look at
> foo-nat.c" and stuff like that.
> 
> I take it it's kosher to use CONFIG_ARCH_foo in -nat.c files, right?
> I feel icky writing that in these modern gdbarch'ed times.  But as
> long as we're getting types like gregset_t from the system headers,
> the decision on how registers are laid out within that type is
> inevitably a compile-time thing, so it's legitimate to use #ifdefs to
> select the appropriate code.  Right?
> 
> Ideally, I was hoping someone from IBM would check it for
> correctness.  But they don't seem to follow these lists,
> unfortunately.

I missed the salient details because I only skimmed it the first time. 
How about "this isn't the way we want to deal with core files, look at
bfd/elf.c and mips-linux-tdep.c".  Are any two of the gregset types
actually the same size?  If not, in *grok_prstatus, you can autodetect
based on the note size.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer