From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23801 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2003 16:59:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23700 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2003 16:59:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2003 16:59:24 -0000 Received: from zenia.red-bean.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h53GxJQX003401; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:59:19 -0500 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h53GxIe0003397; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:59:18 -0500 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: s390x: correct core file register layout References: <3EDBF2DA.C81FF90E@redhat.com> <20030603130315.GA13577@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 16:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030603130315.GA13577@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:48:16AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Michael Snyder writes: > > > > > Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > > > > > 2003-05-23 Jim Blandy > > > > > > > > * s390-nat.c (supply_gregset, fill_gregset): On the s390x, the > > > > elements of gregset_t are 64 bits each, but access registers > > > > are still 32 bits, so they're packed two per gregset_t > > > > element. Unpack/pack them properly. > > > > > > What sort of comment are you looking for? > > > > Well, lewd ones, in particular. But given the nature of the patch I > > wasn't expecting much along those lines, and would have settled for > > "this isn't the way we deal with native targets, idiot, look at > > foo-nat.c" and stuff like that. > > > > I take it it's kosher to use CONFIG_ARCH_foo in -nat.c files, right? > > I feel icky writing that in these modern gdbarch'ed times. But as > > long as we're getting types like gregset_t from the system headers, > > the decision on how registers are laid out within that type is > > inevitably a compile-time thing, so it's legitimate to use #ifdefs to > > select the appropriate code. Right? > > > > Ideally, I was hoping someone from IBM would check it for > > correctness. But they don't seem to follow these lists, > > unfortunately. > > I missed the salient details because I only skimmed it the first time. > How about "this isn't the way we want to deal with core files, look at > bfd/elf.c and mips-linux-tdep.c". Are any two of the gregset types > actually the same size? If not, in *grok_prstatus, you can autodetect > based on the note size. Ahh, now that's a comment. I'm stuck in PPC64-land at the moment, but I'll put together a revision.