> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
> From: paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com>
> 
> Can somebody please help with this open point ?

Sorry, I don't understand what point.

> --- On Wed, 7/1/09, paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and assurity
> > To: "Pedro Alves" <pedro@codesourcery.com>, "Mark Kettenis" <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>, "Hui Zhu" <teawater@gmail.com>
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 9:30 PM
> > Hi Hui,
> > 
> > As I clarified earlier, 
> > these registers are already supported and extended by gdb
> > much before this patch.
> > all floating point registers are already supported by gdb 
> > (info floats/info all-registers command gives it)
> > 
> > My aim is : only to make sure that whenever any floating
> > point insn gets executed, we record the registers 
> > (no matter whether it is %st(n) or FCTRL or FTAG or
> > FSTATUS)
> > there are insns
> > e.g. 'ffree' changes FTAG register, so we must record it.
> > 
> > Do you mean to say that we should remove it from just
> > enumaration ?
> > but anyway we need to record those registers.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Oza.
> > 
> > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with
> > more testing and assurity
> > > To: "paawan oza" <paawan1982@yahoo.com>,
> > "Pedro Alves" <pedro@codesourcery.com>,
> > "Mark Kettenis" <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>,
> > "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>
> > > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > > Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 11:23 AM
> > > About this patch, I say my idea
> > > again, I told in
> > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00014.html
> > > @@ -145,7 +145,22 @@
> > >    I386_ES_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %es */
> > >    I386_FS_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %fs */
> > >    I386_GS_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %gs */
> > > -  I386_ST0_REGNUM   
> > >     /* %st(0) */
> > > +  I386_ST0_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(0) */
> > > +  I386_ST1_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(1) */
> > > +  I386_ST2_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(2) */
> > > +  I386_ST3_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(3) */
> > > +  I386_ST4_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(4) */
> > > +  I386_ST5_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(5) */
> > > +  I386_ST6_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(6) */
> > > +  I386_ST7_REGNUM,   
> > >     /* %st(7) */
> > > +  I386_FCTRL,       
> > >     /* floating point env regs : FCTRL-FOP
> > > */    
> > > +  I386_FSTAT,
> > > +  I386_FTAG,       
> > >     
> > > +  I386_FISEG,
> > > +  I386_FIOFF,
> > > +  I386_FOSEG,
> > > +  I386_FOOFF,
> > > +  I386_FOP
> > >  };
> > > 
> > > You are working on make prec x86 support fp insn, not
> > to
> > > extend the fp
> > > function of i386 (If you want, you can make a special
> > patch
> > > for it).
> > > 
> > > Hui
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 23:05, paawan oza<paawan1982@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > As I am submitting the patch for the first time,
> > I am
> > > not much aware of gdb test suite.
> > > > would you please guide me about how I can put
> > the
> > > things in the testsuite ?
> > > > is it the testsuite which comes along with the
> > gdb
> > > source ?
> > > > gdb\testsuite\gdb.base ??
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Oza.
> > > >
> > > > --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> > > >> Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch
> > :
> > > with more testing and assurity
> > > >> To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > > >> Cc: "paawan oza" <paawan1982@yahoo.com>,
> > > teawater@gmail.com
> > > >> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 7:09 PM
> > > >> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 14:23:30,
> > > >> paawan oza wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > As suggested by Hui,
> > > >> > > I have come up with more detailed
> > and
> > > granular
> > > >> test case
> > > >> > > for the patch which I had submitted
> > last
> > > week.
> > > >>
> > > >> Could you please consider migrating that test
> > into
> > > the
> > > >> testsuite?
> > > >> You've gone through the trouble of writing
> > tests
> > > to make
> > > >> sure
> > > >> the features work now --- putting it in the
> > > testsuite means
> > > >> we
> > > >> have an automatic-ish means to check that it
> > > doesn't get
> > > >> inadvertently broken in the future.  The way
> > it
> > > is,
> > > >> when your
> > > >> code gets in, the test will probably end up
> > lost
> > > in the
> > > >> archives.
> > > >> We wouldn't want that, would we?  :-) 
> > Having
> > > >> auto-tests, also helps
> > > >> the person doing the review in confirming
> > things
> > > work as
> > > >> expected (without much effort).
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Pedro Alves
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       
>