On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 02:40:07PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 11/10/2025 12:50, Luis wrote:
> > On 07/10/2025 13:31, Ezra.Sitorus@arm.com wrote:
> > > From: Ezra Sitorus <ezra.sitorus@arm.com>
> > >
> > > Support FPMR in gdbserver.
> >
> > Nit. Make it "Add support for FPMR register set in gdbserver."
> >
> > It is a bit more descriptive.
>
> But grammatically wrong, since FPMR is short for Floating Point Mode
> Register. So then you'd have:
>
> Add support for the floating point mode register register set in
> gdbserver!!!!
>
> R.
>
> >
I agree with Richard that it should just be FPMR but I think FPMR register
set makes sense too. Linux kernel has REGSET_FPMR, as well as REGSET_GPR
and REGSET_FPR. Maybe you're meant to think something along the lines of a
'register set called FPMR, which only has the FPMR'?
I meant FPMR the register set exposed by the Linux Kernel via ptrace. That's what these changes are dealing with.
But either way is fine by me. You could use:
"Add support for FPMR in gdbserver."
Which means something like this:
> > > +/* Fill BUF with the FPMR register from the regcache.� */
> > > +
> > > +static void
> > > +aarch64_fill_fpmr_regset (struct regcache *regcache, void *buf)
should just be:
Fill BUF with the FPMR from the regcache.
but this works too:
Fill BUF with the FPMR register set from the regcache.
Technically it is the register set we're dealing with, but it has a single register. Again, as long as it is clear I'm fine either way. It is a minor detail.