From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9949 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2010 21:17:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 9937 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2010 21:17:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f41.google.com) (74.125.82.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:17:49 +0000 Received: by wwg30 with SMTP id 30so2279162wwg.0 for ; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:17:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.87.143 with SMTP id y15mr2186025wee.42.1267996666854; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:17:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <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> <20100307210742.GZ16726@codesourcery.com> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6dc9ffc81003071317t6ce60afo7e14bedcdb64190c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: PATCH: 0/6 [2nd try]: Add AVX support From: "H.J. Lu" To: Nathan Froyd Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00284.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Nathan Froyd wro= te: > 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. =A0I >> > 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. =A0It means you can't refer to >> something stored in a %ymmN register with a single register number. > > Sure you can. =A0GDB knows to merge %ymmNh with %xmmN if it needs to to > make %ymmN, which will have only one register number. > We aren't going to give %ymmNh their own DWARF register numbers in gcc 4.4. Mark's idea of using %ymmN register number for %xmmN if AVX is available seems to work fine. --=20 H.J.