From: "Mark Kettenis" <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <drow@false.org>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA][2/5] New port: Cell BE SPU (valops.c fix)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5032.82.92.89.47.1164311948.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200611231755.kANHt6g2013138@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > I suppose there's times we want to destroy the rest of the register,
> > so knowing where it is in the register isn't enough?
>
> The problem is, we don't *know* where it is in the register.
>
> For example, on the SPU "char" values are placed in byte 3 of
> the 16 bytes of a general purpose register, "short" values are
> placed in bytes 2 and 3, and "int" values are placed in bytes
> 0 .. 3. ("long long" is placed in 0 .. 7.)
>
> However, structs are placed into registers starting from
> byte 0 always.
Which is the same way as structs are stored in memory isn't it?
> So if we have
>
> struct { char x; char y; char z; char w; } s;
> char t;
>
> and both s and t reside in registers, then a value to access
> t would look exactly the same as a value to access s.x (i.e.
> type "char", lval_regnum, value_offset == 0), but to access
> them requires using different bytes of the register.
I actually think the problem is that you're thinking that s.x lives in
a register where it is actually s itself that lives in that register.
So VALUE_TO_REGISTER should be called for the struct itself, not its
char member.
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-23 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-11 18:38 Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-22 14:15 ` [PING] " Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-22 14:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-22 19:25 ` Jim Blandy
2006-11-22 19:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-22 19:55 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-22 20:30 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-22 20:43 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-22 20:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-22 22:13 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-22 22:48 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-23 13:57 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-23 16:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-23 17:55 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-23 19:59 ` Mark Kettenis [this message]
2006-11-24 2:08 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-24 15:51 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-28 14:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-27 19:31 ` Jim Blandy
2006-11-27 22:06 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-27 22:31 ` Jim Blandy
2006-11-27 23:23 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-11-27 23:59 ` Jim Blandy
2006-11-28 0:01 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-12-06 16:29 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-12-06 16:43 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-12-06 17:10 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-12-06 17:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-12-07 6:34 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-12-06 21:21 ` Jim Blandy
2006-12-06 22:02 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-12-06 23:24 ` Jim Blandy
2006-12-06 23:16 ` Ulrich Weigand
2006-12-06 23:39 ` Jim Blandy
2006-12-08 15:50 ` Ulrich Weigand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5032.82.92.89.47.1164311948.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl \
--to=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox