From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10344 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2001 17:04:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10287 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 17:04:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (24.114.42.213) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 17:04:26 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E5E3DE8; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:04:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C066A96.6050201@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:59:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20011020 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] W.I.P. AltiVec ppc registers support. References: <15365.39495.801289.497931@krustylu.cygnus.com> <20011129012730.A19781@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 > > Wait, I knew I was forgetting something important. > > There is no kernel support for this feature in any public PowerPC > kernel tree, and to my knowledge there has been no suggested patch for > it on any of the public LinuxPPC forums. As such, the interface to it > is still up in the air. I've discussed this with other kernel folk at > various times, and the general consensus is that, instead of adding > them to the user area and using PEEKUSR, someone should simply > implement PTRACE_GETFPXREGS (perhaps just PTRACE_GETXREGS, as the FP > does not really apply, but consistency...). We almost never want to > fetch just one altivec register, excepting maybe VRSAVE, and GETFPXREGS > takes negligibly more time than a single PEEKUSR call. So if the tweek to ppc-linux-nat.c that does the register fetch was omitted, it would be ok? Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] W.I.P. AltiVec ppc registers support. Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3C066A96.6050201@cygnus.com> References: <15365.39495.801289.497931@krustylu.cygnus.com> <20011129012730.A19781@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00559.html Message-ID: <20011129090400.jN_ZY5is2qo91AoMHzbi_iWvZwK5Ed5duWKBprG7tgY@z> > > Wait, I knew I was forgetting something important. > > There is no kernel support for this feature in any public PowerPC > kernel tree, and to my knowledge there has been no suggested patch for > it on any of the public LinuxPPC forums. As such, the interface to it > is still up in the air. I've discussed this with other kernel folk at > various times, and the general consensus is that, instead of adding > them to the user area and using PEEKUSR, someone should simply > implement PTRACE_GETFPXREGS (perhaps just PTRACE_GETXREGS, as the FP > does not really apply, but consistency...). We almost never want to > fetch just one altivec register, excepting maybe VRSAVE, and GETFPXREGS > takes negligibly more time than a single PEEKUSR call. So if the tweek to ppc-linux-nat.c that does the register fetch was omitted, it would be ok? Andrew