From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7240 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2010 21:07:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 7229 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2010 21:07:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:07:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 13842 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2010 21:07:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (froydnj@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Mar 2010 21:07:42 -0000 Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:07:00 -0000 From: Nathan Froyd To: Mark Kettenis Cc: hjl.tools@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: 0/6 [2nd try]: Add AVX support Message-ID: <20100307210742.GZ16726@codesourcery.com> References: <20100304180219.GA10826@intel.com> <20100306221634.GA21133@intel.com> <201003071416.o27EGPfu007140@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <6dc9ffc81003070637q3e554ba4n2ee6053c2fd24511@mail.gmail.com> <6dc9ffc81003070831yf923b9bj83da56cb9c83a751@mail.gmail.com> <6dc9ffc81003070840x649dcc23qa088fddd69df7e54@mail.gmail.com> <20100307190959.GY16726@codesourcery.com> <201003071946.o27JkYU7030157@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201003071946.o27JkYU7030157@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00283.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 08:46:34PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Nathan Froyd > > The third alternative--again, what's adopted for the PPC SPE 64-bit > > registers--is to give %ymmNh their own DWARF register numbers. I > > suppose it's also ABI-incompatible, but it seems like it fits with your > > approach much better than either of the above alternatives. > > I don't think that would be a good idea. It means you can't refer to > something stored in a %ymmN register with a single register number. Sure you can. GDB knows to merge %ymmNh with %xmmN if it needs to to make %ymmN, which will have only one register number. > The compiler will have to use a more complicated expression (which may > not be possible for older debug info formats) for these. As a result, > things like "info address" become rather useless. I suppose the importance of that depends on how important supporting older debug info formats is. I haven't looked into whether the SPE bits are well supported under non-DWARF formats. -Nathan