Re: PATCH: Extend gdb remote protocol for AVX

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 07:37:13 -0700
> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
> 
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> >> I have no objection to the changes you proposed for the remote
> >> protocol.  But your diff also touches the core register stuff, and
> >> that needs a bit more thought to make sure we don't surprise our
> >> users.  At that point, it may be easier to use the same model for the
> >> remote protocol, where you transfer the top 128 bits of the %ymm
> >> registers in addition to the %xmm registers.  Adter all this is how
> >> the hardware does it too (xsave is just an extension of fxsave).
> >
> > One way would be to transfer the xmm registers and then the remaining
> > bits as unnamed registers; another, probably easier way would be to
> > use an architecture specification or an actual register description to
> > transfer just the ymm registers and let GDB know about that fact, so
> > it can synthesize the xmm registers.
> >
> > (I don't remember the original patch, that may be what you're talking
> > about already.)
> >
> 
> My proposal transfers the whole 256bit registers.  We can display
> xmm registers as the lower 128bit ymm registers if we can
> display al/ax/eax.

That certainly is a possibility, but if it is the right choice depends
on quite a bit more things that just ease of implementation of the
remote protocol.  An important thing to check is what register numbers
compilers (and GCC in particular) use for these registers.  Are there
compilers that already implement support for these new AVX
instructions?

We really should make sure the DWARF register number mapping in the
AMD64 psABI gets updated for these new registers.  Given the way the
current mapping us defined for %stN and %mmN, it probably makes sense
to give %ymmN their own numbers.