Re: [PATCH 2/3] gdb/record: add support to vmovd and vmovq instructions

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>>>>> "Guinevere" == Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> writes:

Guinevere> This commit adds support to the x86_64 AVX instructions vmovd and vmovq.
Guinevere> The programmers manuals for Intel and AMD describe these 2 instructions
Guinevere> as being almost the same, but my local testing, using gcc 13.2 on Fedora
Guinevere> 39, showed several differences and inconsistencies.

Guinevere>  static bool
Guinevere> -i386_record_vex (struct i386_record_s *ir, uint8_t rex_w, uint8_t rex_r,
Guinevere> +i386_record_vex (struct i386_record_s *ir, uint8_t vex_w, uint8_t vex_r,
Guinevere>  		 int opcode, struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
Guinevere>  {
...
Guinevere> +	error ("Unrecognized VEX.PP value %d at address %s.",
Guinevere> +	       ir->pp, paddress(gdbarch, ir->orig_addr));

I don't know anything about record, really, but it seems weird to have a
function that has two error return mechanisms -- either calling error or
printing a message and returning some value:

Guinevere>      default:
Guinevere>        gdb_printf (gdb_stderr,
Guinevere>  		  _("Process record does not support VEX instruction 0x%02x "

What's the deal with that?

Tom