From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-11952-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 14089 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2002 21:58:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 14047 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 21:58:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 21:58:21 -0000
Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442)
	id 06A755E9DE; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:59:49 -0500 (EST)
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@science.uva.nl>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: i386 Linux: provide correct type for orig_eax register
References: <20020111222448.A73EC5E9D8@zwingli.cygnus.com>
	<s3izo3j1zlk.fsf@soliton.wins.uva.nl>
	<npzo3jnosj.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3C40C94E.7060702@cygnus.com>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:58:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <3C40C94E.7060702@cygnus.com>
Message-ID: <np6664mw4q.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2


Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> > I think we should #define HAVE_SSE_REGS unconditionally in
> >> config/i386/tm-linux.h.  Later, when things are properly multi-arched,
> >> we can decide whether we actually display thos registers based on the
> >> actual processor model.
> > Okay.  I'll give that a try.
> 
> 
> I'm trying to decide if it will break something.
> 
> The old ``remote packet is defined by the layout of the register
> buffer'' problem is lurking ready to strike :-(  This would put the
> SSE registers into the register buffer causing GDB to try to send them
> to a target that, rightly, doesn't expect them (hmm and also doesn't
> support a register-write packet)
> 
> It is why I was hacking on remote.c.  I've two more things to do: the
> protocol format command and sort out what ever happend to a
> read-register packet proposal that was posted.

Well, in that context, may I at least commit the change I posted?  It
simply extends the pattern of i386_linux_register_raw_size,
i386_linux_register_byte, and i386_linux_register_name.