Re: Submition of i386.record.floating.point.patch

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

>> diff -urN gdb.orig/i386-tdep.h gdb.new/i386-tdep.h
>> --- gdb.orig/i386-tdep.h ? ? ? ?2009-05-17 17:56:44.000000000 -0400
>> +++ gdb.new/i386-tdep.h 2009-05-31 16:33:14.000000000 -0400
>> @@ -145,7 +145,22 @@
>> ? I386_ES_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* %es */
>> ? I386_FS_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* %fs */
>> ? I386_GS_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* %gs */
>> - ?I386_ST0_REGNUM ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* %st(0) */
>> + ?I386_ST0_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(0) */
>> + ?I386_ST1_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(1) */
>> + ?I386_ST2_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(2) */
>> + ?I386_ST3_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(3) */
>> + ?I386_ST4_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(4) */
>> + ?I386_ST5_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(5) */
>> + ?I386_ST6_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(6) */
>> + ?I386_ST7_REGNUM, ? ? ? ? ? ? /* %st(7) */
>> + ?I386_FCTRL, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* floating point env regs : FCTRL-FOP */
>> + ?I386_FSTAT,
>> + ?I386_FTAG,
>> + ?I386_FISEG,
>> + ?I386_FIOFF,
>> + ?I386_FOSEG,
>> + ?I386_FOOFF,
>> + ?I386_FOP
>> ?};
>>
>
> About this part, I think this is my mistake. ?I didn't take fp work
> for now very clear (Or I am still not clear with x86 fp).
> FCTRL, FOP and so on are the fp reg of amd64. ?For now, prec is still
> not support amd64 (I am working on it).
> And amd64's support are in amd64-tedp.... files. ?Change i386_regnum
> is not a good idea.
>
> I suggest you divide fp patch to 2 parts. One is for i386, the other for amd64.
> For now, just send i386 patch for review. ?And send amd64 patch when
> prec support amd64.
>
>
>

What do you think about my idea?