From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] Use target descriptions for PowerPC
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071006180036.GB10179@caradoc.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1191686484.18959.51.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 01:01:24PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> A few more comments, in the hope they can be useful.
Thanks.
> I see that the comments above about variants have been removed. Some of
> them mention different processor models which also fit the register
> description, and others describe choices made and restrictions with the
> register descriptions. Is it worthwhile to transport these to the XML
> files?
In my opinion, not particularly. The comments mostly describe things
which are no longer true. I just went through them again and added a
couple back.
> I'd suggest adding a description about what the FIXME above refers to.
Not a thing. It should be removed. I had an #if 0 below there at one
point, which is what needed to be fixed. Whoops!
> > - /* 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 implemented. */
>
> The FIXME is being removed above. Was this issue fixed already? It seems
> it's not, so maybe the FIXME could be moved to somewhere else, like
> ppc-linux-nat.c where I believe the behaviour comes from?
This patch fixes the problem. Actually, it's a little more
complicated than that since the comment doesn't really describe the
state of affairs. Take a look at how 32-bit PowerPC is handled;
before my patch, I mean, not after. AltiVec registers are always
included. It doesn't hurt, as long as the underlying target
behaves gracefully: either fetching them or quietly not doing
so. I made the 64-bit handling uniform with that.
Ideally a target which doesn't supply the extra registers should
report a description which doesn't include them. Any time someone
wants to do that, it'd be easy to add the new description required.
> BTW, both powerpc-32.xml and powerpc-64.xml include the altivec feature,
> so you are assuming that ppc32 has altivec registers as well, right?
No, I'm just preserving the messy status quo where we assume them
present if we don't know.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-06 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-05 16:38 Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-10-05 17:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-10-05 17:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-10-05 21:40 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2007-10-05 23:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-10-06 16:05 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2007-10-06 18:04 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-10-06 16:01 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2007-10-06 18:00 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2007-10-15 19:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071006180036.GB10179@caradoc.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox