From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25259 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2010 17:46:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 25237 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Apr 2010 17:46:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:46:10 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L0G00600UMCL200@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:45:18 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.92.42]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L0G002SRUNHV2C0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:45:18 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:46:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix for Go32-v2 native woes In-reply-to: <001801cad593$8e70daf0$ab5290d0$%muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83iq84xyoa.fsf@gnu.org> References: <002a01cad517$d36eab90$7a4c02b0$%muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <001801cad593$8e70daf0$ab5290d0$%muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2 > From: "Pierre Muller" > Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:15:05 +0200 > > I finally managed to find a fix, but it is not straightforward: > I had to add a new xml file in features/i386 directory > specific for go32v2 target, that does not read i386-sse.xml. > I had to adapt the code in i386-tdep.c to support > missing feature_vector and to set tdesc to > tdesc_i386_go32v2 instead of tdesc_i386 when go32v2 > osabi was detected. > > This allows me to use CVS GDB on DJGPP again. > > I checked with a testsuite run on gcc-farm that nothing changed > for at least that other target (amd64-linux). > > Similar fixes might be required for other 'old' > i386 targets that do not support SSE registers. > > Comments welcome as usual! Thanks. But I really hope that a much more elegant solution could be found. A general layer of code such as i386-tdep.c should not include any code that is specific to certain targets. Why do we always read i386-sse.xml or assume that SSE is supported? We should not assume any CPU features by default if there are CPUs out there which we support that don't have them.