From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9139 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2009 05:19:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 9129 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jul 2009 05:19:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from web112501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (HELO web112501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com) (98.137.26.74) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:19:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 49675 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jul 2009 05:19:13 -0000 Message-ID: <210466.48533.qm@web112501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Received: from [123.238.27.199] by web112501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:19:12 PDT Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:19:00 -0000 From: paawan oza Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and assurity To: Michael Snyder Cc: Mark Kettenis , "pedro@codesourcery.com" , "teawater@gmail.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 Hi, Actually, the initial patch which I submitted were using them. but as I have incorporated Hui's comments I have removed those constants co= mpletely. in the sense I have no longer extended the enumration. but of course, those registers are recorded as and when required. e.g. (ffree insn changes FTAG register, so we record it) Regards, Oza. --- On Sat, 7/4/09, Michael Snyder wrote: > From: Michael Snyder > Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and ass= urity > To: "paawan oza" > Cc: "Mark Kettenis" , "pedro@codesourcery.com" <= pedro@codesourcery.com>, "teawater@gmail.com" , "gdb-pa= tches@sourceware.org" > Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 3:19 AM > paawan oza wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > In My understanding the point was like below. > > in the patch there were following register extended in > enumeration in i386-tdep.h > >=20 > > I386_FSTAT, > > I386_FTAG,=A0 =A0 =A0=A0=A0I386_FISEG, > > I386_FIOFF, > > I386_FOSEG, > > I386_FOOFF, > > I386_FOP > >=20 > >=20 > > According to Hui in some of his previous mails...his > idea was > >> FCTRL, FOP and so on are the fp reg of > amd64.=A0 For now, prec is still > >> not support amd64 And amd64's support are in > amd64-tedp.... files.=A0 >Change i386_regnum is not a > good idea. I suggest you divide fp patch to 2 >parts. One > is for i386, the other for amd64. For now, just send i386 > patch >for review.=A0 And send amd64 patch when prec > support amd64" > >=20 > >=20 > > while, my idea/understanding is: > > FCTRL, FOP registers are not only a part of amd64, but > also part of i386 (x87 FPU unit) also. > > so according to me these registers are part of i386 > also and it needed to be also in i386-tdep.h. > >=20 > > Regards, > > Oza. >=20 > I'm not sure why you want to add those constants to > i386-tdep.h, > when the rest of your patch does not seem to use them. >=20 >=20