From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 46350 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2015 17:42:04 -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 46341 invoked by uid 89); 6 Dec 2015 17:42:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f170.google.com) (209.85.214.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 17:42:02 +0000 Received: by obciw8 with SMTP id iw8so14076222obc.1 for ; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 09:42:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.93.170 with SMTP id cv10mr19501695oeb.38.1449423720306; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 09:42:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.77.99 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 09:42:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151206163527.GA4819@adacore.com> References: <1445864086-4831-1-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <1445864086-4831-5-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <20151206163527.GA4819@adacore.com> Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2015 17:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Intel(R) MPX registers to the DWARF enumeration. From: "H.J. Lu" To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Walfred Tedeschi , GDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Add registers as defined in the ABI adapted for MPX. >> As presented at: >> https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/wiki/X86-psABI >> >> 2013-05-06 Walfred Tedeschi >> >> * amd64-tdep.c (amd64_dwarf_regmap): Add mpx registers. >> * amd64-tdep.h (amd64_regnum): Add mpx registers. > > Small nit: should we spell "MPX"? > > BTW - the ABI document reference above seem to only indicate > registers 126-129 as "reserved" rather than bound registers 0-4. > Is that normal? > We used to have DWARF register map for bound registers. But it was determined that it isn't needed. If it isn't true, we need to revisit it. -- H.J.