From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-72447-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12956 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2010 20:42:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 12946 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2010 20:42:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SARE_MSGID_LONG45,TW_EG
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:42:44 +0000
Received: by vws4 with SMTP id 4so2203976vws.0         for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.44.198 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201004222021.o3MKLYSh017913@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
References: <20100421230929.GA11193@intel.com> 	 <201004221948.o3MJmAnH030821@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 	 <j2m6dc9ffc81004221312teeea67b8pf9eacd88d0a0d6b2@mail.gmail.com> 	 <201004222021.o3MKLYSh017913@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:42:00 -0000
Received: by 10.220.108.205 with SMTP id g13mr7142214vcp.175.1271968959188;  	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <q2s6dc9ffc81004221342vb7383eaaxdde1d6fe2c5bea42@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Remove amd64_linux_gregset64_reg_offset and regmap
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: 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: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00766.txt.bz2

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wr=
ote:
>> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:12:08 -0700
>> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl=
> wrote:
>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:09:29 -0700
>> >> From: "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> As we have discussed, this patch removes amd64_linux_gregset64_reg_of=
fset
>> >> and regmap from i386/amd64 Linux targets. =A0OK to install?
>> >
>> > The amd64 bits are ok. =A0A small issue with the i386 bits below.
>> >> diff --git a/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c b/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c
>> >> index d559811..35bc3bd 100644
>> >> --- a/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c
>> >> +++ b/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c
>> >> @@ -245,18 +228,19 @@ void
>> >> =A0fill_gregset (const struct regcache *regcache,
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 elf_gregset_t *gregsetp, int regno)
>> >> =A0{
>> >> - =A0elf_greg_t *regp =3D (elf_greg_t *) gregsetp;
>> >> + =A0gdb_byte *regp =3D (gdb_byte *) gregsetp;
>> >> =A0 =A0int i;
>> >>
>> >> =A0 =A0for (i =3D 0; i < I386_NUM_GREGS; i++)
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0if (regno =3D=3D -1 || regno =3D=3D i)
>> >> - =A0 =A0 =A0regcache_raw_collect (regcache, i, regp + regmap[i]);
>> >> + =A0 =A0 =A0regcache_raw_collect (regcache, i,
>> >> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 regp + i386_linux_g=
regset_reg_offset[i]);
>> >>
>> >> =A0 =A0if ((regno =3D=3D -1 || regno =3D=3D I386_LINUX_ORIG_EAX_REGNU=
M)
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0&& I386_LINUX_ORIG_EAX_REGNUM
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0< gdbarch_num_regs (get_regcache_arch (regcache)))
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0regcache_raw_collect (regcache, I386_LINUX_ORIG_EAX_REGNUM,
>> >> - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 regp + ORIG_EAX);
>> >> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 regp + 4 * ORIG_EAX);
>> >
>> > I think this should use an offset from i386_linux_gregset_reg_offset[]
>> > as well.
>> >
>>
>> Like this?
>
> Yeah, the long line is a bit of a pity, but yes, I think that's better.
>

I checked it in.

Thanks.


--=20
H.J.