From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9716 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2013 15:40:28 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 9705 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jul 2013 15:40:28 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:40:27 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Uykst-0001JF-JW from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:40:19 -0700 Received: from NA1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.181]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:40:18 -0700 Received: from [172.30.15.113] ([172.30.15.113]) by NA1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:40:18 -0700 Message-ID: <51E417DD.90806@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:40:00 -0000 From: Luis Machado Reply-To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Arnez CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [ping 2] [RFA][PATCH v4 0/5] Add TDB regset support References: <87zju3intq.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <87d2qt83au.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <874nbwtdgk.fsf_-_@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <51E3F8B3.10109@codesourcery.com> <87zjtnsupy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87zjtnsupy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00350.txt.bz2 On 07/15/2013 12:34 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: > Luis Machado writes: > >> I didn't go through your last update of the patch, but FTR i still >> think we should make the core file sections static and store them in >> some form of array instead of hardcoding their contents in numerous >> function calls. > > In the PowerPC case the patch includes four call-back invocations, all > contained in a 20-line iterator function. I'd hardly call that > "numerous function calls". And I consider it an improvement over the > original code, which had six hard-coded static array initializers with > various copy-/pasted lines, plus the logic for selecting the correct > array. The improvement is even more drastic for S/390. Don't you > agree? Or do you see even more potential for improvement? What i don't see now is an obvious way of telling which register sets are available for core files in PowerPC. You'd have to infer that based on dynamic data. It is my personal view on the change, really. I don't claim it is right or wrong. Also, why is the PowerPC backend being modified together with S390? Is this a change to account for POWER8? The introductory mail does not mention anything PowerPC-specific. Luis