Re: [PATCH] Re: [rfa/amd64] Zero fill 32-bit registers

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

>    Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:39:47 -0500
>    From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
>    > Could you live with just zero-extending the 16 general-purpose
>    > registers and the instruction pointer?  I'll implement it for you.
> 
>    It is certainly an improvement!  Can you test it?
> 
> I've tested the attached on SuSE 8.2, with -m32.  No changes in the
> testoutput for me, but the threaded stuff doesn't work very well on
> the system (and probably no at all in on 32x64-bit).  I committed it
> anyway, since I can't imagine this making things worse for the
> threaded stuff if it works for the non-threaded stuff.  I'd appreciate
> it if you could test whether this fixed the problems you were seeing.

The segment registers have the same problem, is the attached ok? 6.1? 
With it applied I get test results that approach i386.

Andrew


[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]

2004-02-29  Andrew Cagney  <cagney@redhat.com>

	* amd64-nat.c (amd64_collect_native_gregset): Zero-extend the
	32-bit segment registers.

Index: amd64-nat.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/amd64-nat.c,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 amd64-nat.c
--- amd64-nat.c	28 Feb 2004 21:55:48 -0000	1.5
+++ amd64-nat.c	29 Feb 2004 23:08:08 -0000
@@ -139,6 +139,12 @@
 	  if (regnum == -1 || regnum == i)
 	    memset (regs + amd64_native_gregset_reg_offset (i), 0, 8);
 	}
+      /* Ditto for %cs, %ss, %ds, %es, %fs, and %gs.  */
+      for (i = I386_CS_REGNUM; i < I386_ST0_REGNUM; i++)
+	{
+	  if (regnum == -1 || regnum == i)
+	    memset (regs + amd64_native_gregset_reg_offset (i), 0, 8);
+	}
     }
 
   if (num_regs > NUM_REGS)