From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 65492 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2016 18:53:43 -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 65483 invoked by uid 89); 12 Feb 2016 18:53:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:2694, sk:Debian-, sk:Debian, sk:debian X-HELO: xyzzy.0x04.net Received: from xyzzy.0x04.net (HELO xyzzy.0x04.net) (109.74.193.254) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:53:41 +0000 Received: from hogfather.0x04.net (89-65-66-135.dynamic.chello.pl [89.65.66.135]) by xyzzy.0x04.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514B23FE6A; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:54:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.13.108] (89-65-66-135.dynamic.chello.pl [89.65.66.135]) by hogfather.0x04.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C604558008C; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:53:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.trace: Add a testcase for tdesc in tfile. To: Antoine Tremblay References: <56BB4004.1090708@redhat.com> <1455185675-27574-1-git-send-email-koriakin@0x04.net> <56BC85E8.6010409@redhat.com> <56BC97F1.3020108@0x04.net> <56BE26FC.8030400@0x04.net> Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: =?UTF-8?Q?Marcin_Ko=c5=9bcielnicki?= Message-ID: <56BE2A32.4060908@0x04.net> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00428.txt.bz2 On 12/02/16 19:49, Antoine Tremblay wrote: > > Marcin Kościelnicki writes: > >> On 12/02/16 19:31, Antoine Tremblay wrote: >>> >>> Marcin Kościelnicki writes: >>> >>>> On 11/02/16 14:00, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>>> On 02/11/2016 10:14 AM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote: >>>>>> This tests whether $ymm15 can be correctly collected and printed from >>>>>> tfile. It covers: >>>>>> >>>>>> - storing tdesc in tfile (without that, $ymm15 doesn't exist) >>>>>> - ax_pseudo_register_collect for x86 (without that, $ymm15 cannot be >>>>>> collected) >>>>>> - register order in tfile_fetch_registers (without that, $ymm15h is >>>>>> fetched from wrong position) >>>>>> - off-by-one in tfile_fetch_registers (without that, $ymm15h is >>>>>> incorrectly considered to be out of bounds) >>>>>> - using proper tdesc in encoding tracepoint actions (without that, >>>>>> internal error happens due to $ymm15h being >>>>> >>>>> OK once prereqs are in. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Pedro Alves >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, pushed. >>> >>> Hi, >>> I've been trying to run this test on x86 but I get the following error >>> while compiling tfile-avx.c : >>> >>> binutils-gdb/build-x86/gdb/testsuite/../../../gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/tfile-avx.c:38:19: error: invalid register name for 'a' >>> register __v8si a asm("ymm15") = { >>> ^ >>> >>> I've also noticed the same error on the buildbot results see: >>> http://gdb-build.sergiodj.net/builders/Debian-x86_64-m64/builds/2928/steps/test%20gdb/logs/stdio >>> >>> My cpu (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4600M ) supports avx, cat /proc/cpuinfo >>> shows avx and a gdb print $ymm15 returns something... >>> >>> This is with gcc 4.8.4... >>> >>> Am I missing something? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Antoine >>> >> >> Ugh. It seems you need a newer gcc to recognize "ymm15" as a register >> name - 4.8.2 seems to want it called "xmm15" - sort of incorrect, but >> close enough. gcc 5.3 still accepts that, so perhaps we should change >> it to xmm15 for the sake of older compilers, even if it harms readability? > > Would xmm15 still work on newer gccs ? If so I would guess it's a good > idea to change it given that our own buildbot test machines seem to test > with an older gcc...? Both xmm15 and ymm15 work just fine on gcc 4.9.3 and 5.3.0, which are the only ones I have around right now. So, let's do it. > > Maybe adding a note of it in the test... or if there's a way to check > for the gcc version ? I'll throw in a comment. > > I actually can't find the gcc doc where those names are defined at the > moment would you have that handy by any chance? gcc/config/i386/i386.h, ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES. > > Regards, > Antoine >