From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20082 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2002 20:47:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20071 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 20:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 20:47:06 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7QKkrUo009393; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:46:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7QKkrq0001067; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:46:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7QKkqCE001064; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:46:52 +0200 (CEST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: i386 register groups? References: <3D6A75EC.2090807@ges.redhat.com> <20020826184705.GA6735@nevyn.them.org> <3D6A81CD.10207@ges.redhat.com> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney's message of "Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:30:21 -0400" Message-ID: <86lm6tfiv7.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney 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 ;-). 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). 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". Mark