From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15211 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2008 14:37:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 15202 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2008 14:37:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:37:16 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so698371eyg.24 for ; Sun, 05 Oct 2008 07:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.45.14 with SMTP id s14mr4715866ebs.126.1223217433812; Sun, 05 Oct 2008 07:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.63.19 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Oct 2008 07:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6dc9ffc80810050737r56b0d044vcf8e8f1368d2d03d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:37:00 -0000 From: "H.J. Lu" To: "Mark Kettenis" , hjl.tools@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Extend gdb remote protocol for AVX In-Reply-To: <20081004221325.GA6856@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080918172728.GA12703@lucon.org> <200810021026.m92AQMqC006955@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <6dc9ffc80810020715o21079a0fn972cd30a94695f6c@mail.gmail.com> <200810042049.m94Kn3k8015088@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20081004221325.GA6856@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> I have no objection to the changes you proposed for the remote >> protocol. But your diff also touches the core register stuff, and >> that needs a bit more thought to make sure we don't surprise our >> users. At that point, it may be easier to use the same model for the >> remote protocol, where you transfer the top 128 bits of the %ymm >> registers in addition to the %xmm registers. Adter all this is how >> the hardware does it too (xsave is just an extension of fxsave). > > One way would be to transfer the xmm registers and then the remaining > bits as unnamed registers; another, probably easier way would be to > use an architecture specification or an actual register description to > transfer just the ymm registers and let GDB know about that fact, so > it can synthesize the xmm registers. > > (I don't remember the original patch, that may be what you're talking > about already.) > My proposal transfers the whole 256bit registers. We can display xmm registers as the lower 128bit ymm registers if we can display al/ax/eax. -- H.J.