From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24055 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2003 01:52:40 -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 23959 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2003 01:52:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2003 01:52:39 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA64980018E; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:52:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCFE4E6.7060805@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 01:52:00 -0000 From: "J. Johnston" Organization: Red Hat Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: fix ia64 long double support References: <3FCFB735.80204@redhat.com> <1031205011907.ZM8602@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1031205011907.ZM8602@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Dec 4, 5:37pm, J. Johnston wrote: > > >>Fix to a couple of problems. First of all, we aren't setting up a long double >>format for the architecture so it defaults to double when you try and print a >>long double value via gdb. >> >>Although the ia64 has a special long double format it specifies, >>this format is only valid for register values. Values in memory use >>the x86 extended float format which is 80 bits. Register long >>doubles are 82 bits (2 more bits of exponent). > > > So what happens when we try to print a long double in a register? > The routine ia64_register_type() returns builtin_type_ia64_ext for the floating-point registers which is the 82-bit register variant. > >>Anyway, this simple change fixes it so long doubles print correctly. >> >>Ok to commit? > > > Sure. I'm guessing that we still won't always print long doubles correctly, > but it looks like this gets us closer... > > Kevin >