From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15666 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 15:42:41 -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 15656 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 15:42:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 15:42:40 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0248A3CAD; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D6E40EE.5000904@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:59:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michal Ludvig , 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> <3D6E3666.7070309@suse.cz> <20020829150833.GA29973@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00982.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 04:57:42PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote: > >> 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? > > > Hmm, there's already some common files between the ports; there should > be another, I think. I don't want something as i386-specific as this > anywhere near gdbtypes.c. How about i386-common-tdep.c or something > like that? It shouldn't be in gdbtypes.c. MarkK, I believe, is planning on merging much of the i386 and x86-64 stuff so that a single GDB would support both -- that would remove the issue. Is there any immediate technical problem stopping x86-64 linking in i386-tdep.c? (Yes scary, multi-arch). Andrew