public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Alan Hayward <Alan.Hayward@arm.com>,
	"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/11] Add BFIN_MAX_REGISTER_SIZE
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:03:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3239de71-1e7c-22dd-172d-56a3baad292b@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EDDA588D-0125-4A03-AFD3-51DADFE0D4DF@arm.com>

On 04/04/2017 11:14 AM, Alan Hayward wrote:
> Max size set to 32bits, which I determined using regformats/reg-bfin.dat

Makes me wonder sth (and in general, not for this patch in particular):

Is it possible that any of these code paths that hardcode an arch specific
max register size end up seeing a larger register size because the reported
xml target description includes such a larger register?

E.g., say arch A normally only has 32-bit registers, for as much GDB knows.
And then some stub for some variant of A includes a register
in the description like:

  <reg name="foo" bitsize="64" type="uint64"/>

It kinds of sounds like the max register size is capped by what target
descriptions can describe for that architecture, not exactly by the size
of the registers that GDB considers "core" registers.  That may
already have been taken into account and it may well be that the paths
that use the FOO_MAX_REGISTER_SIZE macros only ever work with registers
that GDB does know about (haven't checked carefully), rendering the concern
moot, but I wanted to put the thought out there anyway.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-04-05 15:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-04 10:14 Alan Hayward
2017-04-05 10:28 ` Yao Qi
2017-04-05 13:43   ` Alan Hayward
2017-04-05 13:50     ` Andreas Schwab
2017-04-05 13:57       ` Alan Hayward
2017-04-05 14:10     ` Yao Qi
2017-04-07  8:32       ` Alan Hayward
2017-04-05 15:03 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2017-04-05 15:51   ` Alan Hayward
2017-04-07 16:04     ` Yao Qi
2017-04-07 16:22       ` Alan Hayward
2017-04-14 17:26 ` Mike Frysinger

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3239de71-1e7c-22dd-172d-56a3baad292b@redhat.com \
    --to=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=Alan.Hayward@arm.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).