From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16510 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2016 11:53:25 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 16482 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2016 11:53:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1310 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:53:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638D2116193; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 06:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 3VFBvV+sqxN1; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 06:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9062116184; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 06:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EBE9A430BE; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:53:07 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: Alan Hayward , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] AARCH64 SVE: Increse max register sizes Message-ID: <20161213115307.GA3814@adacore.com> References: <20161212181032.GC25542@E107787-LIN> <20161213114742.GF25542@E107787-LIN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20161213114742.GF25542@E107787-LIN> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 > > >Joel expressed the willingness that we should make MAX_REGISTER_SIZE > > >gdbarch specific last time when it was changed from 32 to 64. > > >https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-09/msg00245.html > > >I think we should make MAX_REGISTER_SIZE gdbarch specific, or stop > > >using it at all. > > > > I’m happy to do this if that’s what people want. I avoided doing it > > because I > > didn’t want to subtly break something and it’s going to be quite a large > > change - > > I might submit it a set of patches by itself. > > > > You can start from changing amd64-tdep.c and frame.c, which are > interesting to most of people here. It shouldn't take long to finish > the patch, and post it to get feedback quickly. If people agree/like > the change, then you can move on changing the rest in the same way. I agree. Let's separate this patch from the infrastructure rework. In particular, I don't remember at the time if I was considering the impact of making turning the max register size into a dynamic value - I am thinking a lot of code might be using it in expressions that assume it is constant (array of MAX_REGISTER_SIZE bytes). Do people agree that this is an idea worth pursuing? At the moment, I'm not sure myself... -- Joel