[PATCH 1/2] gdb/doc: rename "x86 Architecture-specific Issues" section to "x86"

[PATCH 1/2] gdb/doc: rename "x86 Architecture-specific Issues" section to "x86"

[Simon Marchi]

I'm looking to add some x86-specific information to the doc, but I find
the naming of this section odd.  It doesn't really talk about issues, it
just gives generally useful information.  Also, the sections about other
architectures don't mention "issues", just the architecture name.

Also, at least in the HTML version of the doc, the name is inconsistent
between the main table of content, where it appears as "x86
Architecture-specific Issues", and the sub-table of contents of the
"Architectures" section, where it appears as "i386".

Rename the section to just "x86".

Change-Id: I0a119ff1ab5e7b83c9afa3c3977eb085e88f52ca
---
 gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
index 8be9725d1a27..72083fc5b64f 100644
--- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
+++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
@@ -26096,7 +26096,7 @@ all uses of @value{GDBN} with the architecture, both native and cross.
 
 @menu
 * AArch64::
-* i386::
+* x86::
 * Alpha::
 * MIPS::
 * HPPA::               HP PA architecture
@@ -26206,8 +26206,8 @@ information automatically from the core file, and will show one of the above
 messages depending on whether the synchronous or asynchronous mode is selected.
 @xref{Memory Tagging}. @xref{Memory}.
 
-@node i386
-@subsection x86 Architecture-specific Issues
+@node x86
+@subsection x86
 
 @table @code
 @item set struct-convention @var{mode}

base-commit: 9c5bc1bd1399c11427deec1f8de6c537ab249087
-- 
2.42.0

[PATCH 2/2] gdb/doc: describe x87 registers

[Simon Marchi]

While investigating this [1], I initially had no idea what register
"fioff" stood for, making it difficult to map it to something in the
Intel or AMD manuals.  Similarly, I can imaging someone familiar with
x87 to want to print the "x87 last instruction address", and have no
clue that GDB makes it available as register "fioff".  The names of the
x87 state fields don't seem to be standardized, they even change between
sections of the Intel manual (between the FSAVE, FXSAVE and XSAVE area
descriptions).

Add some details to the doc to help one map GDB register names to x87
state fields.

[1] https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20230908022722.430741-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#u

Change-Id: I0ea1eb648358e62da4aa87eea3515ee8a09f2762
---
 gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
index 72083fc5b64f..90d928fb295d 100644
--- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
+++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
@@ -26310,6 +26310,25 @@ At this last step the value of bnd0 can be changed for investigation of bound
 violations caused along the execution of the call.  In order to know how to
 set the bound registers or bound table for the call consult the ABI.
 
+@subsubsection x87 registers
+
+GDB provides access to the x87 state through the following registers:
+
+@itemize
+
+@item @code{$st0} to @code{st7}: @code{ST(0)} to @code{ST(7)} floating-point
+registers
+@item @code{$fctrl}: control word register (@code{FCW})
+@item @code{$fstat}: status word register (@code{FSW})
+@item @code{$ftag}: tag word (@code{FTW})
+@item @code{$fiseg}: last instruction pointer segment
+@item @code{$fioff}: last instruction pointer
+@item @code{$foseg}: last data pointer segment
+@item @code{$fooff}: last data pointer
+@item @code{$fop}: last opcode
+
+@end itemize
+
 @node Alpha
 @subsection Alpha
 
-- 
2.42.0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb/doc: describe x87 registers

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
> Date: Fri,  8 Sep 2023 11:20:58 -0400
> From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> While investigating this [1], I initially had no idea what register
> "fioff" stood for, making it difficult to map it to something in the
> Intel or AMD manuals.  Similarly, I can imaging someone familiar with
> x87 to want to print the "x87 last instruction address", and have no
> clue that GDB makes it available as register "fioff".  The names of the
> x87 state fields don't seem to be standardized, they even change between
> sections of the Intel manual (between the FSAVE, FXSAVE and XSAVE area
> descriptions).
> 
> Add some details to the doc to help one map GDB register names to x87
> state fields.
> 
> [1] https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20230908022722.430741-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com/T/#u
> 
> Change-Id: I0ea1eb648358e62da4aa87eea3515ee8a09f2762
> ---
>  gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

Thanks, such additions are always welcome.

Approved-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb/doc: describe x87 registers

[Pedro Alves]

On 2023-09-08 16:20, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
> While investigating this [1], I initially had no idea what register
> "fioff" stood for, making it difficult to map it to something in the
> Intel or AMD manuals.  Similarly, I can imaging someone familiar with
> x87 to want to print the "x87 last instruction address", and have no
> clue that GDB makes it available as register "fioff".  The names of the
> x87 state fields don't seem to be standardized, they even change between
> sections of the Intel manual (between the FSAVE, FXSAVE and XSAVE area
> descriptions).
> 
> Add some details to the doc to help one map GDB register names to x87
> state fields.
> 

Thanks for implementing this!  Just one nit below:

> +@subsubsection x87 registers
> +
> +GDB provides access to the x87 state through the following registers:

GDB -> @value{GDBN}

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb/doc: describe x87 registers

[Simon Marchi]

On 9/8/23 13:03, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2023-09-08 16:20, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> While investigating this [1], I initially had no idea what register
>> "fioff" stood for, making it difficult to map it to something in the
>> Intel or AMD manuals.  Similarly, I can imaging someone familiar with
>> x87 to want to print the "x87 last instruction address", and have no
>> clue that GDB makes it available as register "fioff".  The names of the
>> x87 state fields don't seem to be standardized, they even change between
>> sections of the Intel manual (between the FSAVE, FXSAVE and XSAVE area
>> descriptions).
>>
>> Add some details to the doc to help one map GDB register names to x87
>> state fields.
>>
> 
> Thanks for implementing this!  Just one nit below:
> 
>> +@subsubsection x87 registers
>> +
>> +GDB provides access to the x87 state through the following registers:
> 
> GDB -> @value{GDBN}
> 

Thanks, fixed and pushed.

Simon

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb/doc: rename "x86 Architecture-specific Issues" section to "x86"

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
> Date: Fri,  8 Sep 2023 11:20:57 -0400
> From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> I'm looking to add some x86-specific information to the doc, but I find
> the naming of this section odd.  It doesn't really talk about issues, it
> just gives generally useful information.  Also, the sections about other
> architectures don't mention "issues", just the architecture name.
> 
> Also, at least in the HTML version of the doc, the name is inconsistent
> between the main table of content, where it appears as "x86
> Architecture-specific Issues", and the sub-table of contents of the
> "Architectures" section, where it appears as "i386".
> 
> Rename the section to just "x86".

Assuming the information there is good for x86_64 as well, this is
fine by me.

Approved-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb/doc: rename "x86 Architecture-specific Issues" section to "x86"

[Simon Marchi]

On 9/8/23 11:37, Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> Cc: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
>> Date: Fri,  8 Sep 2023 11:20:57 -0400
>> From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>
>> I'm looking to add some x86-specific information to the doc, but I find
>> the naming of this section odd.  It doesn't really talk about issues, it
>> just gives generally useful information.  Also, the sections about other
>> architectures don't mention "issues", just the architecture name.
>>
>> Also, at least in the HTML version of the doc, the name is inconsistent
>> between the main table of content, where it appears as "x86
>> Architecture-specific Issues", and the sub-table of contents of the
>> "Architectures" section, where it appears as "i386".
>>
>> Rename the section to just "x86".
> 
> Assuming the information there is good for x86_64 as well, this is
> fine by me.

I think it is.

> Approved-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>

Thanks, pushed.

Simon