This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Unifying i387 support
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>
- Subject: Re: Unifying i387 support
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 04:47:29 -0400 (EDT)
- CC: kettenis@wins.uva.nl, billm@suburbia.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
> > Does anyone care for the MMX view of the ST(i) registers? Perhaps, if
> > we design a change in the layout, it would be better to make it
> > last...
>
> I don't understand. They do appear last.
No, I meant to *add* the MMX view to the structure, as if they were a
separate set of registers. Then GDB could display either the FP view
or the MMX view, depending on the mode that the processor is in, or
perhaps we could have a sub-command to tell GDB what view to use.
(FWIW, ``to make it last'' was meant to say that the new layout should
support newly-introduced features, so that it won't become obsolete
too quickly. Sorry for unclear wording.)
> > Also, why did you choose to represent the registers as char buffers
> > instead of what they are (shorts, longs, long doubles, etc.)?
>
> Because I'd like to support cross-debugging from architectures with
> different word sizes and FP formats.
I thought the structure you presented was the platform-independent
one, and that therefore all the conversions required by architecture
differences have been done already by the platform-dependent code that
fills the structure.