From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26657 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2002 06:06:52 -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 26611 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2002 06:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO potter.sfbay.redhat.com) (205.180.83.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2002 06:06:37 -0000 Received: from makita.cygnus.com (makita.sfbay.redhat.com [192.168.30.83]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g3S65bv12026; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:05:37 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:06:00 -0000 From: "Martin M. Hunt" X-Sender: hunt@makita.cygnus.com To: Elena Zannoni cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Simplify SIMD registers In-Reply-To: <15562.3668.39161.18708@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00474.txt.bz2 On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Now, I have concerns for platforms other than Altivec, that may have > used a representation like the one I would like to abandon. > I am talking about SSE regs on x86 which are v4sf type. Right? SSE registers are v4sf only, but SSE2 registers (Pentium 4) are v2df, v4sf, v16qi, v8hi, v4si, and v2di. I don't believe GDB supports them yet. > For this reason I didn't touch the existing built in types which have > the structure wrapping, but I introduced new ones to be used by > AltiVec registers. > > Comments? I would like to see us treat all SIMD registers in the same manner, not just Altivec. Even though the packing and size will vary, the display syntax should be consistent. Martin