From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1898 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2006 14:34:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 1890 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2006 14:34:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:34:21 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FFXpr-0005FY-KR for gdb@sourceware.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:34:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New branch created for "available features" support Message-ID: <20060304143419.GA20035@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060303213507.GA20474@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0603031436i7c88ccf2j12b2af5e39e6947@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0603031436i7c88ccf2j12b2af5e39e6947@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 02:36:22PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > So a "feature" would be something like "SSE", or "MMX" with the > additional SSE registers, and then a "feature set" would be something > like "Pentium MMX" or "Pentium 3", referring to the appropriate > individual feature sets? s/feature sets?/features?/ at the end. Otherwise, yes. At the moment at least (before I get back to the questions of nesting) a feature set represents the entire target. > I understand why you want to supply base register numbers in feature > sets, rather than features; it makes it possible to share features. > But if we're going to have other sorts of features as of yet > unimagined, they may or may not expect a base register number as a > parameter. That is, you've tied something specific to register banks > to your entities. > > I'd say, rename to . Introduce new, > appropriately named kinds of entities for new kinds of features. That > way, you can look at the tag and know what sorts of parameters it > expects. My mental model was that a single feature might contain registers, or not, and something else, or not. That's why base-regnum is optional. So a feature might contain, say, registers and MMIO ports and have a base for both; but if it contains no registers, base-regnum might be omitted. However, you may be right that I've got the separation at the wrong level - I'll have to think about that one for a little. If there's any advantage to the separation it would be easy to change. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery