This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
i386: Are we settled?
- To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>, "J. T. Conklin" <jtc at redbacknetworks dot com>, "J. Kean Johnston" <jkj at sco dot com>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>
- Subject: i386: Are we settled?
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:18:11 -0500 (EST)
- CC: gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
Are we settled on the essential contents of tm-i386.h? Can we start
removing the little [regs] and [fpregs] boxes from
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/gdb/papers/linux/i386-includes.png?
Essentially, I see two outstanding questions remaining:
- How should i386 targets handle the x86 FPU's 80-bit float type? How
can we make sure that hosts capable of handling it properly don't
perform lossy conversions?
- What format should the output from "info float" take? (Actually, it
sounds like this is pretty much resolved.)
Notably missing from this list are any other questions about tm-i386.h
as it stands. Am I correct in thinking that the other x86 port
maintainers think it's basically sane?
If so, I encourage folks to start deleting stuff from their more
specialized tm-*.h files, and using the definitions in tm-i386.h.
It's been done for Linux and the HURD, so it's had some testing, but
if the definitions there don't please you, and not for some odd
platform-specific reason, then we don't yet have a consensus, and I
would like to continue talking about what you do want in tm-i386.h.
(Again, I'm excluding issues related to `long double'; I do expect
folks to retain their own definitions for coping with that.)
I'd specifically like responses from the people addressed directly in
the "To:" header --- those are the people who look to me most likely
to be doing the work for a specific platform, and/or who have
participated in the discussion.