This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] i386 register shuffle
- From: Pierre Muller <muller at cerbere dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at science dot uva dot nl>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:30:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 register shuffle
At 16:31 27/12/2001 , Mark Kettenis a écrit:
>This is a first step towards cleaning up the register numbering scheme
>used for the i386. All possible numberings are now parametrized by
>FP0_REGNUM and gdbarch_tdep (current_gdbarch)->num_xmm_regs. This
>patch makes i386-tdep.h the definitive source for information about
>the register layout.
Mark, when you remove a macro, wouldn't it be better to substitute
this macro where it is by its new equivalent?
I still find 5 references to LAST_FPU_CTRL_REGNUM macro
in the src/gdb dir.
go32-nat.c:469: else if (regno <= LAST_FPU_CTRL_REGNUM)
go32-nat.c:494: else if (regno <= LAST_FPU_CTRL_REGNUM)
i386-linux-nat.c:96: (FP0_REGNUM <= (regno) && (regno) <= LAST_FPU_CTRL_REGNUM)
i386v4-nat.c:184: for (regi = FP0_REGNUM; regi <= LAST_FPU_CTRL_REGNUM; regi++)
i386v4-nat.c:219: for (regi = FP0_REGNUM; regi <= LAST_FPU_CTRL_REGNUM; regi++)
Which means that go32 native target doesn't compile anymore
one again.
Moreover, I don't really understand
Use XMM0_REGNUM instead of LAST_FPU_CTRL_REGNUM.
This is really not a good change in my opinion:
if anyone one day decides to change the order of the i386 registers,
to for instance put the mxcsr reg before the xmm regs,
then the
for (i = FP0_REGNUM; i < XMM0_REGNUM; i++)
i387_supply_register (i, fsave);
will become wrong...
Wouldn't it be more logical to at least define a LAST_FP_REGUM?
Pierre Muller
Institut Charles Sadron
6,rue Boussingault
F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France)
mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99