This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH: 1/6: Add AVX support
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:06:11 -0800
> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:27:09PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> > No, it will fail to display SSE. ?Core debugging should still be
> >> > possible, and the newly added registers will be visible too. ?If
> >> > that's not the case, fix GDB to function with the SSE registers
> >> > missing.
> >>
> >> Your description only works for truly NEW registers, which
> >> AVX registers aren't. ?AVX registers are actually the old SSE
> >> registers with different names.
> >
> > I'm trying to get you to think about compatibility in the
> > descriptions, instead of separately in the remote protocol.
> > There are always ways to solve it. ?For instance, you could present
> > both the AVX registers and the hypothetical newer, larger registers as
> > separate things. ?As long as the P packet is implemented, which it is,
> > GDB should work OK if modifying one register changes another.
> > I don't know if there's an example of this in the GDB sources, but I
> > have one in my tree; there's $sp, $sp_user, and $sp_system registers,
> > and $sp is the same as one of the other two depending on processor
> > mode. ?But they're all visible.
> >
> > Another solution is to define new registers which correspond to the
> > added bits, and have a sufficiently recent GDB synthesize the combined
> > registers from the AVX registers and the new bits. ?This, for
> > instance, is how the Power E500 registers are handled
> > (rs6000/power-spe.xml).
> >
>
> OK, I will try SPE approach. It will take a while.
Wait, please. I'll reply later when I have a bit more time, but I
don't think this will be a good idea.