From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 89452 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2018 19:25:23 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 88316 invoked by uid 89); 17 Aug 2018 19:25:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:25:10 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7HJKUuu005808 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:25:08 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2kwyw5ar2j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:25:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:25:07 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.28) by e17.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.204) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:25:05 -0400 Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.109]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w7HJP4tG33619968 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:25:04 GMT Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59FF11206D; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC57B112063; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pedro.localdomain (unknown [9.85.157.43]) by b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pedro.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9B4EF3C03BF; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 16:25:01 -0300 (-03) From: Pedro Franco de Carvalho To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, edjunior@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] [PowerPC] Add support for HTM registers In-Reply-To: References: <20180815000608.26840-1-pedromfc@linux.ibm.com> <20180815000608.26840-13-pedromfc@linux.ibm.com> <540dad8e-f9a2-8173-a556-c919fbeeb43f@redhat.com> <87lg96xktg.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87d0uixe1b.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87mutlj2m3.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:25:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain x-cbid: 18081719-0040-0000-0000-00000460CCDB X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009562; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01074953; UDB=6.00554005; IPR=6.00854911; MB=3.00022777; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-08-17 19:25:07 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18081719-0041-0000-0000-00000867D99A Message-Id: <876008lrsi.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves 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 ? If so, I think > 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