From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13320 invoked by alias); 29 Feb 2004 23:45:20 -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 13313 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2004 23:45:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.115.144) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Feb 2004 23:45:18 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i1TNjCBP000487; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 00:45:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i1TNjCOm000917; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 00:45:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i1TNjC4i000914; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 00:45:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200402292345.i1TNjC4i000914@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <404271AE.5000102@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:11:42 -0500) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [rfa/amd64] Zero fill 32-bit registers References: <403E9BC3.2030807@redhat.com> <200402281046.i1SAkhhe000441@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4040B0F8.2050803@gnu.org> <200402281734.i1SHYvol017921@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4040E96F.4010809@gnu.org> <200402282025.i1SKPdRr000430@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4040FC93.9000100@gnu.org> <200402282155.i1SLtqGg006156@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <404271AE.5000102@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00908.txt.bz2 Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:11:42 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:39:47 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > > Could you live with just zero-extending the 16 general-purpose > > registers and the instruction pointer? I'll implement it for you. > > It is certainly an improvement! Can you test it? > > I've tested the attached on SuSE 8.2, with -m32. No changes in the > testoutput for me, but the threaded stuff doesn't work very well on > the system (and probably no at all in on 32x64-bit). I committed it > anyway, since I can't imagine this making things worse for the > threaded stuff if it works for the non-threaded stuff. I'd appreciate > it if you could test whether this fixed the problems you were seeing. The segment registers have the same problem, is the attached ok? 6.1? With it applied I get test results that approach i386. 2004-02-29 Andrew Cagney * amd64-nat.c (amd64_collect_native_gregset): Zero-extend the 32-bit segment registers. OK. Feel free to add the segment registers to enum i386_regnum and use <= I386_GS_REGNUM instead of < I386_ST0_REGNUM though. Mark