Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] Add some more floatformat types ....
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:13:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3B7D4280.8010005@cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200108171308.f7HD8Q325622@delius.kettenis.local>

> The i386/i387 ISA always stores values in memory as an 80-bit
> quantity.  All floating point instructions are defined to operate on
> 80-bit memory operands.  As far as the ISA concerned there are no
> 96-bit or 128-bit floating point types.  That's why I think we
> shouldn't introduce the floatformat_i387_ext96 type you're proposing,
> and just keep the floatformat_i387_ext we already have.  I think
> pretending that there are several different ways to store an extended
> floating point number, would be wrong.
> 
> The confusion is caused by the dominant C ABI where `sizeof (long
> double)' is 12.  That's why we define TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_BITS to 96.
> That's what the coding fragment you see above is all about.  It is
> perfectly possible to create a compiler on the i386 where `sizeof
> (long double)' would be 10.  In fact there is a PASCAL compiler that
> does exactly that.  But this doesn't change the fact that the
> underlying floating point layout is the same 80-bit format defined by
> the ISA.

Ah, ok, now I understand.  So this means the original i386 did a 4:4:2 
memory transfer when storing an extended float (long sigh)? The extra 2 
bytes and the end of the `long double' always remaining undefined (long 
double sigh)?  I've been hacking sane hardware for too long.

I think I'll clarify the `struct type . length' to:

``Length of storage for a value of this type. This is length of the type 
and not the length of the value that resides within the type.  An 
i386-ext floating-point value, for instance, only occupies 80 bits of 
what is typically a 96 bit `long double'.''

I'll drop the i387_ext from the list of things to add to floatformat.h.

> I would simply introduce the builtin_type_i387_ext for the 80-bit
> floating point type and keep builtin_type_long_double for the 96-bit
> floating point type, both based on floatformat_i387_ext.
> register_virtual_type would then indeed return builtin_type_i387_ext
> for the floating-point registers.

Ok.  The key thing here being that GDB gets two instead of one i387_ext 
`struct type' (because the existing builtin_type_long_double can't 
correctly describe an i387 register) which is really all I'm trying to 
achieve.

--

 > The IA-64, for instance, has an 82 bit floating-point register.  That
 >    register is always represented in memory as 128 bits. 
Consequently, my
 >    proposal includes ia64_ext128 and not ia64_ext82.
 >
 > So we only need a single floatformat_ia64_ext.  Why not keep the
 > floatformat_ia64_ext that we already have in ia64-tdep.c and move it
 > to ../libiberty/floatformat.c?

Dam!  You spotted my cunning plan :-)  That is one of the next steps. 
In the light of the exchange above, a double check on this one is in order.

Kevin, am I correct in saying that the ia64 reads/writes 16 bytes when 
loading/storing an ia64_ext?

Mark, this meaning that the ia64_ext should have a size of 128 and not 
82 as it currently does in ia64-tdep.c?

enjoy,
	Andrew




  reply	other threads:[~2001-08-17  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <3B76164B.9060908@cygnus.com>
2001-08-16 11:36 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-08-16 16:55   ` Mark Kettenis
2001-08-16 20:10     ` Andrew Cagney
2001-08-17  6:08       ` Mark Kettenis
2001-08-17  9:13         ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2001-08-17  9:40           ` Kevin Buettner
2001-08-17 10:12             ` Andrew Cagney
2001-08-17 11:12               ` Kevin Buettner
2001-08-17 12:19                 ` Mark Kettenis
2001-08-17 12:34                   ` Andrew Cagney
2001-08-17 12:51                     ` Kevin Buettner
2001-08-18 12:04                       ` Andrew Cagney
2001-08-17 12:30                 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-08-17 12:32           ` Mark Kettenis
2001-08-21  6:41 ` Fernando Nasser

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3B7D4280.8010005@cygnus.com \
    --to=ac131313@cygnus.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=kettenis@wins.uva.nl \
    --cc=kevinb@cygnus.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox