From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: parcelling up struct gdbarch
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 07:44:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B56EF6F.5060908@cygnus.com>
References: <20010716112536.A19620@nevyn.them.org> <3B533AAD.1060300@cygnus.com> <20010716130559.B25488@nevyn.them.org> <3B536764.1000508@cygnus.com> <20010716154904.A8712@nevyn.them.org> <3B547A08.2030403@cygnus.com> <20010717110305.A18932@nevyn.them.org> <3B5485C5.2010007@cygnus.com> <20010718132140.A2937@nevyn.them.org> <3B5675BA.4010403@cygnus.com> <20010718232242.A24417@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00275.html

>> Don't forget you need to bump the syscall number as part of that new 
>> interface.
> 
> 
> Well, the example I was considering here was something like SSE
> registers or Altivec registers which may or may not be available - you
> can safely increase the size of the user struct, and you can add
> subrequests like PTRACE_GETFPXREGS (or whatever it's called).


Well, if you're not careful all existing GDB binaries will mysteriously 
barf.

	Andrew