Re: i386 register groups?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 10:46:52PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 02:39:40PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > > 
> > >>  mxcsr        40   40    304       4  int                 general,all
> > > 
> > > 
> > > With the other MMX registers, perhaps?
> > 
> > Done (I wouldn't know an MMX register if I tripped over it :-).
> 
> And Daniel doesn't either ;-) (sorry Daniel).  mxcsr is the SSE
> control/status register, so the sse group seems more appropriate to
> me ;-).

Can't win 'em all.

> And while I'm at it, I don't think orig_eax belongs in the "generic"
> group.  It's some sort of OS-specific pseudo-register.  We might
> create a special register group for it, but putting it only in the
> "all" group is fine by me.  Fiddling with it is quite useless (and GDB
> does it for you if it's needed).

Agreed, only "all".

> And what do people think about moving the segment registers out of the
> "general" group into their own group?  If you don't program at the OS
> level, you're not very likely to need them (although on Linux you
> might be interested in %gs when debugging a multi-threaded program).
> We could name the group "segment".

GCC can now generate code that uses these, with the TLS extensions; I
think it'd be worthwhile to keep them.  How useful having them is,
though, I don't know...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer