Re: Submition of i386.record.floating.point.patch

[paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com>]

Hi Hui,

please see the gdb output below, which gives us hint that we require all the floating point registers for i386, which you had suggested to separate and move it to amd64. 
please see the last command "info float" which gives status, tag, control registers

(gdb) n
92        printf("result is %f\n",result);
(gdb)

result is 495830.968750
94        result = no1 - no2 - no3 - no4;
(gdb)
95        printf("result is %f\n",result);
(gdb)

result is -181.778748
98        asm ("fld %0" : :"m"(*float_memory));
(gdb)
99        asm ("fchs");
(gdb)
102       asm ("fld %0" : :"m"(*float_memory));
(gdb)
103       asm ("f2xm1");
(gdb)
105       asm ("fyl2x");
(gdb)
107       asm ("fld %0" : :"m"(*float_memory));
(gdb)
108       asm ("fxtract");
(gdb)
110       asm ("fld %0" : :"m"(*float_memory));
(gdb)
111       asm ("fprem1");
(gdb) info float
  R7: Valid   0xc00a8026ae9a2fe9e7c1 -2050.417627513087141
  R6: Valid   0x40028000000000000000 +8
  R5: Valid   0x3fff8020c50000000000 +1.001000046730041504
=>R4: Valid   0x40078020c50000000000 +256.256011962890625
  R3: Empty   0x00000000000000000000
  R2: Empty   0x00000000000000000000
  R1: Empty   0x00000000000000000000
  R0: Empty   0x00000000000000000000

Status Word:         0x2020                  PE
                       TOP: 4
Control Word:        0x037f   IM DM ZM OM UM PM
                       PC: Extended Precision (64-bits)
                       RC: Round to nearest
Tag Word:            0x00ff
Instruction Pointer: 0x73:0x0804897e
Operand Pointer:     0x7b:0x0804a008
Opcode:            


Regards,
Oza.



--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Submition of i386.record.floating.point.patch
> To: "paawan oza" <paawan1982@yahoo.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 3:48 AM
> >> diff -urN
> gdb.orig/i386-tdep.h gdb.new/i386-tdep.h
> >> --- gdb.orig/i386-tdep.h        2009-05-17
> 17:56:44.000000000 -0400
> >> +++ gdb.new/i386-tdep.h 2009-05-31
> 16:33:14.000000000 -0400
> >> @@ -145,7 +145,22 @@
> >>   I386_ES_REGNUM,              /* %es */
> >>   I386_FS_REGNUM,              /* %fs */
> >>   I386_GS_REGNUM,              /* %gs */
> >> -  I386_ST0_REGNUM              /* %st(0)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST0_REGNUM,             /* %st(0)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST1_REGNUM,             /* %st(1)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST2_REGNUM,             /* %st(2)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST3_REGNUM,             /* %st(3)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST4_REGNUM,             /* %st(4)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST5_REGNUM,             /* %st(5)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST6_REGNUM,             /* %st(6)
> */
> >> +  I386_ST7_REGNUM,             /* %st(7)
> */
> >> +  I386_FCTRL,                  /*
> floating point env regs : FCTRL-FOP */
> >> +  I386_FSTAT,
> >> +  I386_FTAG,
> >> +  I386_FISEG,
> >> +  I386_FIOFF,
> >> +  I386_FOSEG,
> >> +  I386_FOOFF,
> >> +  I386_FOP
> >>  };
> >>
> >
> > About this part, I think this is my mistake.  I
> didn't take fp work
> > for now very clear (Or I am still not clear with x86
> fp).
> > FCTRL, FOP and so on are the fp reg of amd64.  For
> now, prec is still
> > not support amd64 (I am working on it).
> > And amd64's support are in amd64-tedp.... files.
>  Change i386_regnum
> > is not a good idea.
> >
> > I suggest you divide fp patch to 2 parts. One is for
> i386, the other for amd64.
> > For now, just send i386 patch for review.  And send
> amd64 patch when
> > prec support amd64.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> What do you think about my idea?
>