From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15349 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2003 05:48:29 -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 15290 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2003 05:48:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2003 05:48:28 -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 h535mHQX002680; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:48:18 -0500 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h535mGKd002676; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 00:48:16 -0500 To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: s390x: correct core file register layout References: <3EDBF2DA.C81FF90E@redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 05:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3EDBF2DA.C81FF90E@redhat.com> 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/msg00117.txt.bz2 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.