From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18340 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2009 15:42:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 18324 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2009 15:42:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_46,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:42:13 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so667495wfg.24 for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:42:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.13.21 with SMTP id 21mr274349wfm.236.1249659731108; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:42:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <919551.75637.qm@web112511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <919551.75637.qm@web112511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: final i386.floating.record.patch To: paawan oza Cc: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2 Thanks for your work. I try with fp program, looks ok now. And for format of the patch: There is a lot of spaces tail in the tail of the codes. For example: "+ return -1; " "/* Opcode is an extension of modR/M byte. */ " Hui On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 15:17, paawan oza wrote: > Hi Hui & Michael, > Now we revert status registers also. > please find the patch attached. > I am sorry, if I am not pasting the patch in email-body due to tabs&space= s problem faced by Michael last time. > Regards, > Oza. > > --- On Wed, 8/5/09, Michael Snyder wrote: > >> From: Michael Snyder >> Subject: Re: final i386.floating.record.patch >> To: "paawan oza" >> Cc: "Hui Zhu" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" >> Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 7:03 AM >> paawan oza wrote: >> > Hi Hui, >> > >> > please find my analysis as follows. >> > >> > following are the registers which you may find it >> different. >> > >> > fstat >> > ftag >> > fiseg >> > fioff >> > foseg >> > fooff >> > fop >> > >> > In my opinion, we do not need to record all these >> registers. because these registers are purly depends on >> instruction's execution status in FPU unit. >> > >> > >> > for e.g. >> > fop register stores te last opcode executed by x87 FPU >> unit. >> > fstat register may contain c0, c1, c2, c3 flag >> status... >> > >> > why we dont need to record, because even if we reply >> the recod... >> > Anyway these register are going to be change by FPU HW >> unit based on any fp insn's nature and its execution. (next >> insn which FPU is going to execute) >> > >> > so it doesnt make much sense to store it, because even >> if we restore it, FPU unit doesnt use them directly, but FPU >> HW sets them after executing current fp insn. so anyway they >> are going to reset as soon as FPU executes next insn. >> > >> > but still if you feel that we must record those >> registers because user might want to observe those >> registers, then I can do that. >> > >> > please let me know you opinion about it. >> >> It may be that saving the registers is not purely >> necessary, but >> we are not just a simulator -- we are a debugger.=A0 The >> user might >> be confused if he steps backward and sees that the register >> did not >> change. >> >> So I think we should preserve it and revert it. >> >> > > >