From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30707 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 16:39:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 30695 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Mar 2010 16:39:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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, 28 Mar 2010 16:38:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 8113 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2010 16:38:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Mar 2010 16:38:56 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: GDB Subject: Re: PATCH: 6/6 [2nd try]: Add AVX support (gdbserver changes) Message-ID: <20100328163850.GA5815@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "H.J. Lu" , GDB References: <20100304180219.GA10826@intel.com> <20100304180408.GA10869@intel.com> <20100304180748.GC10869@intel.com> <20100304180901.GD10869@intel.com> <20100304181003.GE10869@intel.com> <20100306222250.GG21133@intel.com> <20100312172541.GB6643@intel.com> <20100327160705.GB16019@caradoc.them.org> <6dc9ffc81003271811t5be04ef9yf888edbce6d85236@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6dc9ffc81003271811t5be04ef9yf888edbce6d85236@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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/msg00946.txt.bz2 On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 06:11:31PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > I just follow the current format where SSE register set is marked with > EXTENDED_REGS for i386 and FP_REGS for x86-64. I don't mind > changing it to either of them for both i386 and x86-64. Just let me > know which one I should use. The only reason they're separate is that there was an FP_REGS already. It doesn't make any difference to the implementation. I suggest EXTENDED_REGS unconditionally. > Yes, I have tested them. The logic is in x86_linux_process_qsupported > which will set XML target to AVX if AVX is supported. Then you don't need to change USE_XML at all. Your goal is not to turn off support for "XML". Your goal is to not report the AVX register description. Before all your patches, gdbserver would have reported a tiny target description that contained the OSABI (e.g. "GNU/Linux"). That goes in gdbserver_xmltarget using the "@" prefix that this function checks for. I suggest building such an older gdbserver, to see what it returns. > > I think it'll work if you remove use_xml, and leave USE_XML alone.  If > > GDB does not support XML, you can adjust gdbserver_xmltarget to report > > just the architecture and OSABI the way it did before you added > > register XML files. > > > > I don't know how gdbserver_xmltarget should be set if gdb doesn't support > XML. My current approach is to turn off XML support at run-time even if > USE_XML is 1 when gdb doesn't support XML. Look at what USE_XML controls. You do not need to turn off this block of code. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery