From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13441 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2013 16:30:51 -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 13419 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jul 2013 16:30:50 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RDNS_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.110) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:30:49 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:22:32 +0100 Received: from d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.13) by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.144) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:22:31 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AEC417D8025 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:32:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.229]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r6FGUSAh52822120 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:30:28 GMT Received: from d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r6FGUd2f006407 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:30:39 -0600 Received: from br87z6lw.de.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-143.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.143]) by d06av05.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r6FGUcLb006390; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:30:38 -0600 From: Andreas Arnez To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [ping 2] [RFA][PATCH v4 0/5] Add TDB regset support References: <87zju3intq.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <87d2qt83au.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <874nbwtdgk.fsf_-_@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <51E3F8B3.10109@codesourcery.com> <87zjtnsupy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <51E417DD.90806@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:30:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <51E417DD.90806@codesourcery.com> (Luis Machado's message of "Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:40:13 -0300") Message-ID: <87vc4bss41.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13071516-1948-0000-0000-000005B09051 X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 Luis Machado writes: > On 07/15/2013 12:34 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: >> Luis Machado writes: >> >>> I didn't go through your last update of the patch, but FTR i still >>> think we should make the core file sections static and store them in >>> some form of array instead of hardcoding their contents in numerous >>> function calls. >> >> In the PowerPC case the patch includes four call-back invocations, all >> contained in a 20-line iterator function. I'd hardly call that >> "numerous function calls". And I consider it an improvement over the >> original code, which had six hard-coded static array initializers with >> various copy-/pasted lines, plus the logic for selecting the correct >> array. The improvement is even more drastic for S/390. Don't you >> agree? Or do you see even more potential for improvement? > > What i don't see now is an obvious way of telling which register sets > are available for core files in PowerPC. You'd have to infer that > based on dynamic data. > > It is my personal view on the change, really. I don't claim it is > right or wrong. > > Also, why is the PowerPC backend being modified together with S390? Is > this a change to account for POWER8? The introductory mail does not > mention anything PowerPC-specific. Because I saw the potential for code simplification here. Also, in an informal conversation with Ulrich Weigand he indicated that he was interested in such a change. In the scope of this patch set the PowerPC change is purely optional. I'll just remove it from the next version of the patch set.