From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id y+M+CuZc7WQIHg0AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:50:14 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=sqbOJl4T; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1DF521E0C2; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:50:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BBD91E028 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5639F3858D35 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:50:11 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5639F3858D35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1693277411; bh=h2wNDSNsH+TouLdNwT+YwPWqqSDUOkx6WmOsP+8r6/c=; h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=sqbOJl4TR9I/zY2CcIxrPSauKnLFaAWgCe6WllR1cBeOj9NY5vgJWp3zMYTHK9/Ei vR+XnLx7+0oKxU2Y9tqZYnhkuU3SHAB8D6nR9mXy2+wH59bLJxd6wgSw1b9ATOFdm1 eQVlHi+TsKe0dVoRtgZ2wW+wXJGsLm3pH0FbAxFE= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05F5C3858D28 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:49:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 05F5C3858D28 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (66.187.233.73 [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-408-Bqt0pEfpM6mxlN3Okd7hmA-1; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:49:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Bqt0pEfpM6mxlN3Okd7hmA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB9B73811F33; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f37-zws-nv (unknown [10.22.16.35]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4846840C6F4C; Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:49:43 -0700 To: Feiyang Chen Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: LoongArch: Support LBT registers Message-ID: <20230828194943.122e1848@f37-zws-nv> In-Reply-To: <20230825101113.3527944-1-chenfeiyang@loongson.cn> References: <20230825101113.3527944-1-chenfeiyang@loongson.cn> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.2 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Kevin Buettner Cc: chris.chenfeiyang@gmail.com, zhoubinbin@loongson.cn, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, chenhuacai@loongson.cn Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" I have one nit regarding an enum name... On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 18:11:13 +0800 Feiyang Chen wrote: > diff --git a/gdb/arch/loongarch.h b/gdb/arch/loongarch.h > index d0a63dc2ac5..73f3d64fb16 100644 > --- a/gdb/arch/loongarch.h > +++ b/gdb/arch/loongarch.h > @@ -41,6 +41,11 @@ enum loongarch_regnum > LOONGARCH_FIRST_FCC_REGNUM = LOONGARCH_FIRST_FP_REGNUM + LOONGARCH_LINUX_NUM_FPREGSET, > LOONGARCH_LINUX_NUM_FCC = 8, > LOONGARCH_FCSR_REGNUM = LOONGARCH_FIRST_FCC_REGNUM + LOONGARCH_LINUX_NUM_FCC, > + LOONGARCH_FIRST_SCR_REGNUM = LOONGARCH_FCSR_REGNUM + 1, > + LOONGARCH_LINUX_NUM_SCR = 4, > + LOONGARCH_SCR_REGNUM = LOONGARCH_FCSR_REGNUM + LOONGARCH_LINUX_NUM_SCR, Instead of LOONGARCH_SCR_REGNUM, I recommend that it be named LOONGARCH_LAST_SCR_REGNUM instead. This fits in with its usage in the range tests, e.g. this one from loongarch_supply_lbtregset: > + else if (regnum >= LOONGARCH_FIRST_SCR_REGNUM && regnum <= LOONGARCH_SCR_REGNUM) > + { > + buf = (const gdb_byte*) regs + scrsize * (regnum - LOONGARCH_FIRST_SCR_REGNUM); > + regcache->raw_supply (regnum, (const void *) buf); > + } Naming it LOONGARCH_SCR_REGNUM suggested to me that the index in question was for the (one and only) SCR register, but that's clearly not the case since there are 4 of them. Also, it appears to me that source code corresponding to some of the lines in your patch will exceed 80 characters, so those should be adjusted as well. See: https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20GDB-C-Coding-Standards#Column_limits Kevin