From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1398 invoked by alias); 9 May 2008 14:35:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 1389 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2008 14:35:31 -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; Fri, 09 May 2008 14:34:46 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC96C17F5A6 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 11:24:20 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m49EYeSa528820 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 11:34:40 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m49EYbAm022376 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 11:34:38 -0300 Received: from [9.8.2.179] ([9.8.2.179]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m49EYbob022350; Fri, 9 May 2008 11:34:37 -0300 Message-ID: <48246103.50009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 19:27:00 -0000 From: Carlos Eduardo Seo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080504) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand CC: GDB Patches Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support for PPC Altivec registers in gcore References: <200803311900.m2VJ0geg015353@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200803311900.m2VJ0geg015353@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> OpenPGP: id=8BFFA900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00319.txt.bz2 Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Carlos Eduardo Seo wrote: > >> So, you're suggesting that we go back to something similar I did here in >> linux_nat_do_thread_registers? >> >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-02/msg00157.html > > Yes. It would still be good to convert x86 to we can at least > get rid of the FILL_FPXREGSET special case ... > Hello Sorry for the delay, but I was on vacation. The patch is almost ready; only the debug printf issue remains. My only question now is where is the best place to declare the 'host_address_to_string' conversion function? I thought about utils.c, but I don't think gdbarch.c will find it there. Regards, -- Carlos Eduardo Seo Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center