From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31133 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 14:57:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31121 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 14:57:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kerberos.suse.cz) (195.47.106.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 14:57:43 -0000 Received: from chimera.suse.cz (chimera.suse.cz [10.20.0.2]) by kerberos.suse.cz (SuSE SMTP server) with ESMTP id 4DF8C59D33F; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:57:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from suse.cz (naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16]) by chimera.suse.cz (8.11.0/8.11.0/SuSE Linux 8.11.0-0.4) with ESMTP id g7TEvgg03001; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:57:42 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: chimera.suse.cz: Host naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16] claimed to be suse.cz Message-ID: <3D6E3666.7070309@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:03:00 -0000 From: Michal Ludvig Organization: SuSE CR User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: cs, cz, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64 References: <3CC42DA0.9070906@suse.cz> <3D6BF1D5.70409@ges.redhat.com> <3D6E231D.8060906@suse.cz> <20020829142120.GA5176@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00974.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Well, actually, I like it. Wow! That's a surprise! :-))) > Some textual changes and comments: Thanks, I'm not a native speaker ;-) >>+ builtin_type_i386_eflags = >>+ init_flags_type (32 /* EFLAGS_LENGTH */, >>+ "__i386_eflags", (struct objfile *) NULL); >>+ add_flag_name (builtin_type_i386_eflags, 0, "CF"); >>+ builtin_type_simd_mxcsr = >>+ init_flags_type (32 /* EFLAGS_LENGTH */, >>+ "__simd_mxcsr", (struct objfile *) NULL); >>+ add_flag_name (builtin_type_simd_mxcsr, 0, "IE"); > Do these really need to be in common code? That's gross. Yes, I know > a whole lot of others are, but those are all floatformats or standard > vectors. > This should be in i386-tdep.c. I don't compile i386-tdep.c for x86-64. Should I duplicate the code for x86-64 or better leave it here to have it only once? Michal Ludvig -- * SuSE CR, s.r.o * mludvig@suse.cz * +420 2 9654 5373 * http://www.suse.cz