From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Mark Kettenis Cc: eliz@is.elta.co.il, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: i386 register numbering Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 11:06:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B62FF33.2030807@cygnus.com> References: <200107281012.GAA02314@delorie.com> <200107281214.IAA07439@delorie.com> <3B62D68B.6010401@cygnus.com> <200107281741.f6SHfoN19109@delius.kettenis.local> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00399.html > For most of the registers on the i386, the raw and the cooked regnum > will probably be the same. MMX will probably end up as a cooked > registers some day (since they provide a different view on the > standard FP registers). I cannot see how I can get rid of the convert > stuff for the FP registers though. On the i386 the FP registers can > contain a `float', `double' or `long double' but the internal > representation in the FP register is identical. Turning every FP > register into three cooked registers won't work since in the debug > info they will all have the same register number [:-(] . Regarding MMX, yes. For the basic FP register, see my recent RFC post about adding builtin_type_floatformat*: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-07/msg00624.html You're saying is that a i386 register is always formatted as floatformat_i387_ext. Correct? Consequently, with the above change (and related FIXMEs) in place, all the CONVERT* code could be deleted and instead REGISTER_VIRTUAL_TYPE would just return builtin_type_floatformat_i387_ext and GDB would internaly handle all the conversion problems. Andrew