From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5242 invoked by alias); 3 May 2008 15:55:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 5234 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2008 15:55:29 -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; Sat, 03 May 2008 15:55:05 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7E7983D9; Sat, 3 May 2008 15:55:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A7198150; Sat, 3 May 2008 15:55:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JsK4k-0006Gx-Ur; Sat, 03 May 2008 11:55:02 -0400 Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 16:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa, v3] Fix inferior calls during interrupted system calls on PowerPC Message-ID: <20080503155502.GA22851@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080502143603.GH29202@caradoc.them.org> <200805031531.m43FVZur011320@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805031531.m43FVZur011320@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: 2008-05/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 05:31:35PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > - powerpc-32.xml and powerpc-64.xml used to provide AltiVec registers, > and now they don't. To compensate for that, I've switched the generic > "powerpc" and "powerpc64" targets in rs6000.c:variants back to use > the new AltiVec target descriptions. > > However, I'm wondering why those were using AltiVec in the first place; > shouldn't the generic description be compatible with old gdbserver > implementations (that do not use AltiVec)? This is just how GDB worked before my XML conversion, so I left it alone. The "powerpc" variant in rs6000-tdep.c included AltiVec and I wanted to leave it that way. It's quite possible we could clean it up now. > - In the SPE register set for gdbserver, register numbers 71 and 72 were > already used for "acc" and "spefscr". As it is much simpler to always > use the same numbers for "orig_r3" and "trap", I've moved those SPE > registers to 73 and 74. I *think* this shouldn't break anything as > those numbers were only ever used with XML target descriptions ... Yes, this is OK. Giving them 73 and 74 should work too - the script will generate "0:" as appropriate to make things line up. > - Should we attempt to detect SPE registers in core files? I don't know how SPE registers are dumped, offhand. We can fix this up later. The patch looks OK to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery