Re: RFC: s390x: correct core file register layout

Jim Blandy
2003-06-03T16:59:26Z

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

> 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.

Ahh, now that's a comment.

I'm stuck in PPC64-land at the moment, but I'll put together a
revision.