From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25762 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2009 18:55:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 25752 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2009 18:55:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from web112506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (HELO web112506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com) (98.137.26.142) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:54:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 98012 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Jul 2009 18:54:56 -0000 Message-ID: <801902.97924.qm@web112506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Received: from [123.238.27.199] by web112506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:54:55 PDT Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:55:00 -0000 From: paawan oza Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and assurity To: Mark Kettenis Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, msnyder@vmware.com, teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 Hi, In My understanding the point was like below. in the patch there were following register extended in enumeration in=20 i386-tdep.h I386_FSTAT, I386_FTAG,=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 I386_FISEG, I386_FIOFF, I386_FOSEG, I386_FOOFF, I386_FOP According to Hui in some of his previous mails...his idea was > FCTRL, FOP and so on are the fp reg of amd64. For now, prec is still > not support amd64 And amd64's support are in amd64-tedp.... files. >Chan= ge i386_regnum is not a good idea. I suggest you divide fp patch to 2 >part= s. One is for i386, the other for amd64. For now, just send i386 patch >for= review. And send amd64 patch when prec support amd64" while, my idea/understanding is: FCTRL, FOP registers are not only a part of amd64, but also part of i386 (x= 87 FPU unit) also. so according to me these registers are part of i386 also and it needed to b= e also in i386-tdep.h. Regards, Oza. --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Mark Kettenis wrote: > From: Mark Kettenis > Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and ass= urity > To: paawan1982@yahoo.com > Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, msnyder@vmware.com, teawater@gmail.com, gdb-p= atches@sourceware.org > Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 9:42 PM > > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:02:17 > -0700 (PDT) > > From: paawan oza > >=20 > > Can somebody please help with this open point ? >=20 > Sorry, I don't understand what point. >=20 > > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, paawan oza > wrote: > >=20 > > > From: paawan oza > > > Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : > with more testing and assurity > > > To: "Pedro Alves" , > "Mark Kettenis" , > "Michael Snyder" , > "Hui Zhu" > > > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 9:30 PM > > > Hi Hui, > > >=20 > > > As I clarified earlier,=20 > > > these registers are already supported and > extended by gdb > > > much before this patch. > > > all floating point registers are already > supported by gdb=20 > > > (info floats/info all-registers command gives > it) > > >=20 > > > My aim is : only to make sure that whenever any > floating > > > point insn gets executed, we record the registers >=20 > > > (no matter whether it is %st(n) or FCTRL or FTAG > or > > > FSTATUS) > > > there are insns > > > e.g. 'ffree' changes FTAG register, so we must > record it. > > >=20 > > > Do you mean to say that we should remove it from > just > > > enumaration ? > > > but anyway we need to record those registers. > > >=20 > > > Regards, > > > Oza. > > >=20 > > > --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Hui Zhu > > > wrote: > > >=20 > > > > From: Hui Zhu > > > > Subject: Re: > i386.record.floating.point.patch : with > > > more testing and assurity > > > > To: "paawan oza" , > > > "Pedro Alves" , > > > "Mark Kettenis" , > > > "Michael Snyder" > > > > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 11:23 AM > > > > About this patch, I say my idea > > > > again, I told in > > > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00014.html > > > > @@ -145,7 +145,22 @@ > > > > =A0=A0=A0I386_ES_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %es */ > > > > =A0=A0=A0I386_FS_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %fs */ > > > > =A0=A0=A0I386_GS_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %gs */ > > > > -=A0 I386_ST0_REGNUM=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(0) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST0_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(0) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST1_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(1) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST2_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(2) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST3_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(3) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST4_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(4) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST5_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(5) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST6_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(6) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_ST7_REGNUM,=A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* %st(7) */ > > > > +=A0 I386_FCTRL,=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0 /* floating point env regs : > FCTRL-FOP > > > > */=A0=A0=A0=20 > > > > +=A0 I386_FSTAT, > > > > +=A0 I386_FTAG,=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 > > > > =A0=A0=A0=20 > > > > +=A0 I386_FISEG, > > > > +=A0 I386_FIOFF, > > > > +=A0 I386_FOSEG, > > > > +=A0 I386_FOOFF, > > > > +=A0 I386_FOP > > > >=A0 }; > > > >=20 > > > > You are working on make prec x86 support fp > insn, not > > > to > > > > extend the fp > > > > function of i386 (If you want, you can make > a special > > > patch > > > > for it). > > > >=20 > > > > Hui > > > >=20 > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 23:05, paawan > oza > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > As I am submitting the patch for the > first time, > > > I am > > > > not much aware of gdb test suite. > > > > > would you please guide me about how I > can put > > > the > > > > things in the testsuite ? > > > > > is it the testsuite which comes along > with the > > > gdb > > > > source ? > > > > > gdb\testsuite\gdb.base ?? > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Oza. > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Pedro Alves > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> From: Pedro Alves > > > > >> Subject: Re: > i386.record.floating.point.patch > > > : > > > > with more testing and assurity > > > > >> To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > >> Cc: "paawan oza" , > > > > teawater@gmail.com > > > > >> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 7:09 > PM > > > > >> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 14:23:30, > > > > >> paawan oza wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > As suggested by Hui, > > > > >> > > I have come up with more > detailed > > > and > > > > granular > > > > >> test case > > > > >> > > for the patch which I had > submitted > > > last > > > > week. > > > > >> > > > > >> Could you please consider migrating > that test > > > into > > > > the > > > > >> testsuite? > > > > >> You've gone through the trouble of > writing > > > tests > > > > to make > > > > >> sure > > > > >> the features work now --- putting > it in the > > > > testsuite means > > > > >> we > > > > >> have an automatic-ish means to > check that it > > > > doesn't get > > > > >> inadvertently broken in the > future.=A0 The way > > > it > > > > is, > > > > >> when your > > > > >> code gets in, the test will > probably end up > > > lost > > > > in the > > > > >> archives. > > > > >> We wouldn't want that, would we?=A0 > :-)=A0 > > > Having > > > > >> auto-tests, also helps > > > > >> the person doing the review in > confirming > > > things > > > > work as > > > > >> expected (without much effort). > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Pedro Alves > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=A0 =A0 =A0=A0=A0 > >=20 >=20