This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PING][PATCH 2/2] Involve gdbarch in taking DWARF register pieces
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 23:14:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH 2/2] Involve gdbarch in taking DWARF register pieces
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160415180943 dot 4FEE857EE at oc7340732750 dot ibm dot com> <571134CD dot 8080507 at redhat dot com> <m3shyjw2t3 dot fsf at oc1027705133 dot ibm dot com> <5714E6EA dot 8050905 at redhat dot com> <m3lh4bvu2z dot fsf at oc1027705133 dot ibm dot com> <57150356 dot 3090508 at redhat dot com> <m3a8kpx0ls dot fsf at oc1027705133 dot ibm dot com> <m3h9elvpc7 dot fsf_-_ at oc1027705133 dot ibm dot com> <ee0690e4-1228-7479-61cb-82366f643801 at redhat dot com> <m3d1p9vfqo dot fsf at oc1027705133 dot ibm dot com>
On 04/28/2016 05:51 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28 2016, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>> I couldn't find any reference to "sub-register" in the codebase.
>> I'd assume it's something like "eax" being a sub part of "rax"
>> on x86-64. But I'm not certain that's the case here? On a machine with
>> vector registers, is a FP register really a chunk of the vector
>> register, or is it a real separate physical register?
>
> It's exactly comparable with eax and rax. Or consider the SSE registers
> xmm0-xmm15, which are embedded in their double-wide AVX counterparts
> ymm0-ymm15. With z/Architecture, each 64-bit FP register is just a
> "chunk" ("sub-register" / "part" / "slice" / ...) of a 128-bit vector
> register. The ASCII art in section 2.1 of this article illustrates
> this:
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2016-01/msg00013.html
Thanks, this helps a lot.
>
> (BTW, I still didn't get much feedback on that article...)
>
> And if there is a better (or wider used) term than "sub-register", I'll
> be happy to change the wording.
No, that's fine terminology. I was just confused because I wasn't very
clear whether we're talking about completely different registers.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves