From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2124 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2003 13:03:21 -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 2021 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2003 13:03:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2003 13:03:20 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19NBSI-0008PG-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 08:03:58 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19NBRb-0003Xf-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 09:03:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: s390x: correct core file register layout Message-ID: <20030603130315.GA13577@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3EDBF2DA.C81FF90E@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:48:16AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > Michael Snyder writes: > > > Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > > > 2003-05-23 Jim Blandy > > > > > > * 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