From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16785 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 22:50:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16776 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 22:50:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 22:50:53 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TMojJt000394; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:50:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TMoiq8000431; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:50:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7TMoiXN000428; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:50:44 +0200 (CEST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] MSR and System regs for RedBoot target References: <3D6D9B48.70407@ges.redhat.com> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney's message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:55:52 -0400" Message-ID: <86hehdp9dn.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg01016.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Hello, > > The attached (a patch against my sysregs branch) based mostly by code > previously written by Fernando Nasser, adds MSR and system register > support for an i386 RedBoot target. They each get their own group. > That way: > info registers msr > and > info registers system > works (but MSR and SYSTEM registers are not displayed by ``info > registers''.). Those system registers seem like a good idea to me. I'm not so sure about those MSRs. > The patch (apart from demonstrating that reggroups really do work :-) > identifies a number of issues: > > - The patch makes RedBoot the default i386 abi -- if nothing else hits, > this gets to be it. Its done by brute force. This goes back to the > default discussed earlier for the ``set osabi'' command. Better re-read > the thread ... Does the OS/ABI have to be named "RedBoot"? I think most of this stuff could just as well be added to the generic i386 target. > I'll park this in my sysregs branch. RedBoot is available at > http://sources.redhat.com/redboot/ > > comments? Is there consensus yet on how we should create the types for those flag bits? If we choose Michael Ludvigs approach, this code should be converted before we check it in. Mark