RFA: handle missing fpregs
Jim Blandy
jimb@redhat.com
Mon May 10 17:08:00 GMT 2004
Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> writes:
> On 07 May 2004 16:05:11 -0500
> Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > > + /* On RS6000 variants that have no floating-point registers, the
> > > > + next two members will be -1. */
> > >
> > > I'm not comfortable with the term "RS6000 variants" here. I'd be happier
> > > with "PPC variants", though that's probably not strictly correct either.
> > > I suppose you could just say "On cores that have no floating-point
> > > registers...".
> >
> > The issue is that people might not immediately see all PPC's as RS6000
> > variants, right? Fair enough. "RS6000 variants" is historically
> > correct, but it's not like anyone has fabricated an RS6000 in recent
> > history. I've changed that to "On PPC and RS6000 variants that ...".
>
> Okay, that's fine.
>
> Your revised patch is okay to commit.
>
> Thanks!
Committed. What a wonderful day! :)
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list