Re: [PATCH 1/3] gdb: Start supporting AVX instruction

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>>>>> "Guinevere" == Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> writes:

Guinevere> +  /* These are used by VEX and XOP prefixes.  */
Guinevere> +  uint8_t map_select;
Guinevere> +  uint8_t vvvv;
Guinevere> +  uint8_t pp;
Guinevere> +  uint8_t l;

Are these the names used by the ISA?  Since if not they are pretty ugly.

Guinevere> +static bool
Guinevere> +i386_record_vex (struct i386_record_s *ir, uint8_t rex_w, uint8_t rex_r,
Guinevere> +		 int opcode, struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
Guinevere> +{
Guinevere> +  switch (opcode)
Guinevere> +    {
Guinevere> +    default:
Guinevere> +      gdb_printf (gdb_stderr,
Guinevere> +		  _("Process record does not support VEX instruction 0x%02x "
Guinevere> +		    "at address %s.\n"),
Guinevere> +		  (unsigned int) (opcode),
Guinevere> +		  paddress (gdbarch, ir->orig_addr));
Guinevere> +      return -1;

This should use true or false, not -1, because the function returns
bool.

I wouldn't be surprised to get some kind of dead code warning here,
since the switch only has a single branch.

Tom