Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and assurity

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

About this patch, I say my idea again, I told in
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00014.html
@@ -145,7 +145,22 @@
   I386_ES_REGNUM,		/* %es */
   I386_FS_REGNUM,		/* %fs */
   I386_GS_REGNUM,		/* %gs */
-  I386_ST0_REGNUM		/* %st(0) */
+  I386_ST0_REGNUM,		/* %st(0) */
+  I386_ST1_REGNUM,		/* %st(1) */
+  I386_ST2_REGNUM,		/* %st(2) */
+  I386_ST3_REGNUM,		/* %st(3) */
+  I386_ST4_REGNUM,		/* %st(4) */
+  I386_ST5_REGNUM,		/* %st(5) */
+  I386_ST6_REGNUM,		/* %st(6) */
+  I386_ST7_REGNUM,		/* %st(7) */
+  I386_FCTRL,			/* floating point env regs : FCTRL-FOP */	
+  I386_FSTAT,
+  I386_FTAG,			
+  I386_FISEG,
+  I386_FIOFF,
+  I386_FOSEG,
+  I386_FOOFF,
+  I386_FOP
 };

You are working on make prec x86 support fp insn, not to extend the fp
function of i386 (If you want, you can make a special patch for it).

Hui

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 23:05, paawan oza<paawan1982@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> As I am submitting the patch for the first time, I am not much aware of gdb test suite.
> would you please guide me about how I can put the things in the testsuite ?
> is it the testsuite which comes along with the gdb source ?
> gdb\testsuite\gdb.base ??
> Regards,
> Oza.
>
> --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
>> Subject: Re: i386.record.floating.point.patch : with more testing and assurity
>> To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Cc: "paawan oza" <paawan1982@yahoo.com>, teawater@gmail.com
>> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 7:09 PM
>> On Tuesday 30 June 2009 14:23:30,
>> paawan oza wrote:
>> >
>> > > As suggested by Hui,
>> > > I have come up with more detailed and granular
>> test case
>> > > for the patch which I had submitted last week.
>>
>> Could you please consider migrating that test into the
>> testsuite?
>> You've gone through the trouble of writing tests to make
>> sure
>> the features work now --- putting it in the testsuite means
>> we
>> have an automatic-ish means to check that it doesn't get
>> inadvertently broken in the future.  The way it is,
>> when your
>> code gets in, the test will probably end up lost in the
>> archives.
>> We wouldn't want that, would we?  :-)  Having
>> auto-tests, also helps
>> the person doing the review in confirming things work as
>> expected (without much effort).
>>
>> --
>> Pedro Alves
>>
>
>
>
>