Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] [PowerPC] Add support for HTM registers

[Pedro Franco de Carvalho <pedromfc@linux.ibm.com>]

Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

>> I could add the registers to GDB but it would be messy, since it would
>> require a linux-specific target description with these extra registers.
>
> Can you clarify what do you mean by "is messy"?  Linux-specific target
> descriptions are nothing something new.  There's
> gdb/features/rs6000/power64-linux.xml already, for example?

I suppose I thought it was messy because it would require additional
changes in the init_abi function to handle these Linux-specific
registers, when most of the data in the note section are all the other
registers (which aren't Linux-specific).

Still, adding them is probably the proper way to go about this, and I
need to think about this more.  I'll have to wait before committing
these because I'm going out on vacation.

> Is the only difference zeros vs <unavailable>?  If so, I think <unavailable>
> is less confusing than a bogus zero.  The former tells the truth.  A fake
> zero is misleading.
>
> Or is that so that by dropping the note we would lose access to other,
> relevant info as well?

Yes, useful register values would be lost.  In fact, most of the
registers in the note section are handled by the patch and would
represent actual values.

Thanks a lot for looking at these.

--
Pedro Franco de Carvalho