This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 02/25] Adjust the order of 32bit-linux.xml and 32bit-sse.xml in i386/i386-linux.xml
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:24:14 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/25] Adjust the order of 32bit-linux.xml and 32bit-sse.xml in i386/i386-linux.xml
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=palves at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com E8B6180F8F
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E8B6180F8F
- References: <1497256916-4958-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <1497256916-4958-3-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <edbfcaf81affcc934593ea930863dace@polymtl.ca>
On 06/19/2017 09:22 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2017-06-12 10:41, Yao Qi wrote:
>> Exchange the order of 32bit-linux.xml and 32bit-sse.xml in
>> i386/i386-linux.xml, to align with other i386 linux .xml files.
>>
>> --- a/gdb/features/i386/i386-linux.xml
>> +++ b/gdb/features/i386/i386-linux.xml
>> @@ -12,6 +12,6 @@
>> <architecture>i386</architecture>
>> <osabi>GNU/Linux</osabi>
>> <xi:include href="32bit-core.xml"/>
>> - <xi:include href="32bit-linux.xml"/>
>> <xi:include href="32bit-sse.xml"/>
>> + <xi:include href="32bit-linux.xml"/>
>> </target>
>
> I think you can push this one right away as a cosmetic cleanup.
Unless this is a case of a default target description matching
the layout of targets that predated support for XML descriptions.
Could that be the case here? From:
static void
i386_linux_init_abi (struct gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
{
...
if (! tdesc_has_registers (tdesc))
tdesc = tdesc_i386_linux;
...
... it may well be. So we need to tread carefully here. The
order may be required for back compatibility. A deeper audit
with that in mind is in order.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves