From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 106281 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2017 21:48:45 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 106033 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2017 21:48:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:864 X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:48:20 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 33) id 8177A1E560; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:48:21 -0400 (EDT) To: Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/25] Adjust the order of 32bit-linux.xml and 32bit-sse.xml in i386/i386-linux.xml X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:48:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <9a60c2a9-09ef-c21a-db18-385105d986a1@redhat.com> References: <1497256916-4958-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <1497256916-4958-3-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <9a60c2a9-09ef-c21a-db18-385105d986a1@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2469fcc8da14028094caf53330145210@polymtl.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.5 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 On 2017-06-19 23:24, Pedro Alves wrote: > Unless this is a case of a default target description matching > the layout of targets that predated support for XML descriptions. > > Could that be the case here? From: > > static void > i386_linux_init_abi (struct gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch *gdbarch) > { > ... > if (! tdesc_has_registers (tdesc)) > tdesc = tdesc_i386_linux; > ... > > ... it may well be. So we need to tread carefully here. The > order may be required for back compatibility. A deeper audit > with that in mind is in order. > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves Do you mean that this might impact backward compatibility with older gdbservers (or other remotes) that don't send XML target descriptions and just assume a certain "well-known" register numbering?