From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6865 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2008 03:55:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 6855 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2008 03:55:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:55:30 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D7198118; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:55:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3749801D; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:55:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JTqud-0003Tm-Qq; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:55:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc][2/3] gdbserver bi-arch support: core s390x part Message-ID: <20080226035527.GE4456@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080129202548.GA15063@caradoc.them.org> <200801292333.m0TNXXxP020392@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801292333.m0TNXXxP020392@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00383.txt.bz2 You're welcome to prod me when I drop out in the middle of a conversation like this. Really. I'm sorry about the delay. On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:33:33AM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Yes. Note that there are two different issues: whether we need > to clear the high bit depends on the architecture of gdbserver, > but the size of the register depends on the architecture of > the inferior. To simplify the latter issue, maybe it would be > nice if generic code had a "collect_register_as_addr" helper > that would check the register's size and convert its contents > to CORE_ADDR as appropriate? Then we'd have room to squabble about whether that function sign extended or not. Let's hold off on this one. > * configure.srv [s390x-*-linux*]: Set srv_regobj to include both > reg-s390.o and reg-s390x.o. > > * linux-low.c (new_inferior): New global variable. > (linux_create_inferior, linux_attach): Set it. > (linux_wait_for_process): Call the_low_target.arch_setup after the > target has stopped for the first time. > (initialize_low): Do not call the_low_target.arch_setup. > > * linux-s390-low.c (s390_get_pc): Support bi-arch operation. > (s390_set_pc): Likewise. > (s390_arch_setup): New function. > (the_low_target): Use s390_arch_setup as arch_setup routine. > > * regcache.c (realloc_register_cache): New function. > (set_register_cache): Call it for each existing regcache. This looks great to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery