[COMMITTED] allow gdb to access altivec registers - OK to commit?

[COMMITTED] allow gdb to access altivec registers - OK to commit?

[Paul Gilliam]

On Monday 31 October 2005 13:56, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> I revised the ChangeLog entry to note that this change affects GNU/Linux only.
> 
> OK to commit?  (was the previous posting by Kevin an OK to commit?)
> 
> -=# Paul #=-
> 
> PS:  I realy want this to go int 6.4!
> 
> 2005-10-31  Paul Gilliam  <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>
> 
>         * rs6000-tdep.c (rs6000_gdbarch_init): On GNU/Linux only, assume
> 	 that bfd_mach_ppc64 has altivec unit, just like bfd_mach_ppc.
> 
> Index: rs6000-tdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.246
> diff -a -u -p -r1.246 rs6000-tdep.c
> --- rs6000-tdep.c       14 Oct 2005 20:17:11 -0000      1.246
> +++ rs6000-tdep.c       21 Oct 2005 22:44:15 -0000
> @@ -3376,10 +3376,21 @@ rs6000_gdbarch_init (struct gdbarch_info
> 
>    switch (info.osabi)
>      {
> +    case GDB_OSABI_LINUX:
> +      /* FIXME: pgilliam/2005-10-21: Assume all PowerPC 64-bit linux systems
> +         have altivec registers.  If not, ptrace will fail the first time it's
> +         called to access one and will not be called again.  This wart will
> +         be removed when Daniel Jacobowitz's proposal for autodetecting target
> +         registers is implimented. */
> +      if ((v->arch == bfd_arch_powerpc) && ((v->mach)== bfd_mach_ppc64))
> +        {
> +          tdep->ppc_vr0_regnum = 71;
> +          tdep->ppc_vrsave_regnum = 104;
> +        }
> +      /* Fall Thru */
>      case GDB_OSABI_NETBSD_AOUT:
>      case GDB_OSABI_NETBSD_ELF:
>      case GDB_OSABI_UNKNOWN:
> -    case GDB_OSABI_LINUX:
>        set_gdbarch_unwind_pc (gdbarch, rs6000_unwind_pc);
>        frame_unwind_append_sniffer (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_sniffer);
>        set_gdbarch_unwind_dummy_id (gdbarch, rs6000_unwind_dummy_id);
> 
> 

Re: [COMMITTED] allow gdb to access altivec registers - OK to commit?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:13:52PM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> On Monday 31 October 2005 13:56, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> > I revised the ChangeLog entry to note that this change affects GNU/Linux only.
> > 
> > OK to commit?  (was the previous posting by Kevin an OK to commit?)

[I assume Kevin clarified.]

> > +      /* FIXME: pgilliam/2005-10-21: Assume all PowerPC 64-bit linux systems
> > +         have altivec registers.  If not, ptrace will fail the first time it's
> > +         called to access one and will not be called again.  This wart will
> > +         be removed when Daniel Jacobowitz's proposal for autodetecting target
> > +         registers is implimented. */

Andreas already pointed out this typo; could you fix it, please?


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [COMMITTED] allow gdb to access altivec registers - OK to commit?

[Paul Gilliam]

On Tuesday 01 November 2005 16:16, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > +      /* FIXME: pgilliam/2005-10-21: Assume all PowerPC 64-bit linux systems
> > > +         have altivec registers.  If not, ptrace will fail the first time it's
> > > +         called to access one and will not be called again.  This wart will
> > > +         be removed when Daniel Jacobowitz's proposal for autodetecting target
> > > +         registers is implimented. */
> 
> Andreas already pointed out this typo; could you fix it, please?

I fixed it before I committed the patch, but I didn't repost the corrected patch.

Do you want me to post the corrected patch?

( At least I spelled your name right 8-)  ok, I cut-n-pasted your name right 8-)

-=# Paul #=-

Re: [COMMITTED] allow gdb to access altivec registers - OK to commit?

[Paul Gilliam]

On Tuesday 01 November 2005 16:16, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > +      /* FIXME: pgilliam/2005-10-21: Assume all PowerPC 64-bit linux systems
> > > +         have altivec registers.  If not, ptrace will fail the first time it's
> > > +         called to access one and will not be called again.  This wart will
> > > +         be removed when Daniel Jacobowitz's proposal for autodetecting target
> > > +         registers is implimented. */
> 
> Andreas already pointed out this typo; could you fix it, please?

I fixed it before I committed the patch, but I didn't repost the corrected patch.

Do you want me to post the corrected patch?

( At least I spelled your name right 8-)  ok, I cut-n-pasted your name right 8-)

-=# Paul #=-

Re: [COMMITTED] allow gdb to access altivec registers - OK to commit?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 05:05:40PM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 November 2005 16:16, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > +      /* FIXME: pgilliam/2005-10-21: Assume all PowerPC 64-bit linux systems
> > > > +         have altivec registers.  If not, ptrace will fail the first time it's
> > > > +         called to access one and will not be called again.  This wart will
> > > > +         be removed when Daniel Jacobowitz's proposal for autodetecting target
> > > > +         registers is implimented. */
> > 
> > Andreas already pointed out this typo; could you fix it, please?
> 
> I fixed it before I committed the patch, but I didn't repost the corrected patch.
> 
> Do you want me to post the corrected patch?

Don't bother, but please attach the corrected patch in the future.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [COMMITTED] allow gdb to access altivec registers - OK to commit?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 05:05:40PM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 November 2005 16:16, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > +      /* FIXME: pgilliam/2005-10-21: Assume all PowerPC 64-bit linux systems
> > > > +         have altivec registers.  If not, ptrace will fail the first time it's
> > > > +         called to access one and will not be called again.  This wart will
> > > > +         be removed when Daniel Jacobowitz's proposal for autodetecting target
> > > > +         registers is implimented. */
> > 
> > Andreas already pointed out this typo; could you fix it, please?
> 
> I fixed it before I committed the patch, but I didn't repost the corrected patch.
> 
> Do you want me to post the corrected patch?

Don't bother, but please attach the corrected patch in the future.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC