From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28386 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2002 14:09:50 -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 28379 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2002 14:09:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cerbere.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Aug 2002 14:09:49 -0000 Received: from laocoon (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by cerbere.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FB456F; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:11:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20020830155945.00a473b0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> X-Sender: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:12:00 -0000 To: Michal Ludvig From: Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <3D6F78A1.40304@suse.cz> 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> <3D6E40EE.5000904@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg01032.txt.bz2 At 15:52 30/08/2002 , vous avez écrit: >Andrew Cagney wrote: >>Is there any immediate technical problem stopping x86-64 linking in i386-tdep.c? (Yes scary, multi-arch). > >Yes, if both are linked, the gdbarch initialisation is attempted to be done twice and gdb crashes. I could add an #ifdef to optionally ignore some parts of i386-tdep, but IMHO it's better to introduce a new file as DanielJ proposed. See the patch. I've moved both new builtin types and their initialisation to i386-common-tdep.c and modified all config/i386/*.mt files to require it. This approach shouldn't harm MarkK's effort at all. >Any objections or can I commit it? This looks quite good in general, but I don't have the time to test the patch myself... I was just afraid of one thing : will it still be possible to do arithmetics on those registers ? say that you want to clear on flag in the $eflags registers before your patch you could do set $eflags &=0xfffe if you wanted to clear the flag at position zero. Will this still be possible without typecasting the flag register ? or willsomething like set $eflags = $eflags | [ZF] be possible ? Pierre Muller Institut Charles Sadron 6,rue Boussingault F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France) mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99