From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20579 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2007 19:37:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 20569 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2007 19:37:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:37:46 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5302217F470 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:34:51 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l9VJbhc92482284 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:37:43 -0200 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l9VJbguO013262 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:37:43 -0300 Received: from [9.18.238.59] (dyn531792.br.ibm.com [9.18.238.59]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9VJbg5P013249; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:37:42 -0300 Message-ID: <4728D987.2080801@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:14:00 -0000 From: Carlos Eduardo Seo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070907) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand CC: GDB Patches Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support for PPC Altivec registers in gcore References: <200710302118.l9ULIWbr002434@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200710302118.l9ULIWbr002434@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> OpenPGP: id=8BFFA900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00872.txt.bz2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Carlos Eduardo Seo: > >> Ok. So, this would require removing the FILL_FPXREGSET ifdefs and all >> the fill_fpxregset fallbacks. I think this is OK, but won't it break >> anything in x86? > > Well, it's of course the goal to not break anything in x86 ;-) > You'll need to test on x86 as well to make sure this is the case ... > > Bye, > Ulrich > Just one thing... when you say 'a new gdbarch variable', you mean an additional field in the gdbarch struct, right? Regards, - -- Carlos Eduardo Seo Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHKNmHqvq7Aov/qQARApG0AJ9c9zUhQDpvnE256go4F10bEDssXwCcDs4Q JUpYEW5vTtGdsOHHl9HvE90= =QZa5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----