From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1000 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2010 19:31:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 988 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Mar 2010 19:31:51 -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-vw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:31:47 +0000 Received: by vws20 with SMTP id 20so5410729vws.0 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:31:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.90.201 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:31:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100328163850.GA5815@caradoc.them.org> 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> <20100328163850.GA5815@caradoc.them.org> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:31:00 -0000 Received: by 10.220.126.200 with SMTP id d8mr2169857vcs.46.1269804705738; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6dc9ffc81003281231t2ee136e9jc68807589d5a4d5f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: PATCH: 6/6 [2nd try]: Add AVX support (gdbserver changes) From: "H.J. Lu" To: GDB 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/msg00955.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz w= rote: > 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. =A0I suggest > EXTENDED_REGS unconditionally. I will make the change. >> 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". =A0Your goal is to not > report the AVX register description. =A0Before all your patches, > gdbserver would have reported a tiny target description that > contained the OSABI (e.g. "GNU/Linux"). =A0That 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. =A0= 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. =A0You do not need to turn off this block > of code. I will make the change. Thanks. --=20 H.J.