From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-69902-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11563 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2010 09:14:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 11553 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2010 09:14:16 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:14:11 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o139E63d021233; 	Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:14:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o139E4Ti027331; 	Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:14:04 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:14:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201002030914.o139E4Ti027331@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: hjl.tools@gmail.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20100203033131.GA21501@lucon.org> (hongjiu.lu@intel.com)
Subject: Re: PATCH: Add regcache_raw_supply_part/regcache_raw_collect_part
References:  <20100203033131.GA21501@lucon.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:31:31 -0800
> From: "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Intel AVX saves a 256bit YMM register in lower 128bit and upper 128bit
> separately. This patch adds regcache_raw_supply_part and
> regcache_raw_collect_part. They will be used in AVX gdb patches . OK
> to install?

I think introducing these functions would be a mistake.  If you're not
careful, you'll end up with a register cache where part of some
registers is filled with garbage.

I think it is better for the code that fills the register cache, to
collect the pieces and build the full 256-bit value, and then use
regcache_raw_supply() to fill the register cache.