This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] Add AVX512 feature description to GDB manual
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Michael Sturm <michael dot sturm at intel dot com>
- Cc: palves at redhat dot com, eliz at gnu dot org, mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl, walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:32:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] Add AVX512 feature description to GDB manual
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1396441423-31480-1-git-send-email-michael dot sturm at intel dot com> <1396441423-31480-4-git-send-email-michael dot sturm at intel dot com>
On 04/02/2014 01:23 PM, Michael Sturm wrote:
> describe a single register, @samp{orig_eax}.
>
> +The @samp{org.gnu.gdb.i386.avx512} feature is optional and requires the
> +@samp{org.gnu.gdb.i386.avx} feature. It should
> +describe additional @sc{xmm} registers:
> +
> +@itemize @minus
> +@item
> +@samp{xmm16h} through @samp{xmm31h} for amd64
Missing period, but, saying "for amd64" and not mentioning which
registers should be included for i386 looks odd to me. It looks
as if i386 info was forgotten. The point of mentioning
"for amd64" in the other cases is that i386 includes a different
set of registers, like:
"The register sets may be different, depending on the target.
...
@itemize @minus
@item
@samp{ymm0h} through @samp{ymm7h} for i386
@item
@samp{ymm0h} through @samp{ymm15h} for amd64
@end itemize
"
So is there a difference between i386 and amd64 in the case
of these new xmmXXh registers? If not, or it doesn't make
sense to talk about these registers in case of i386, I suggest
just dropping "for amd64" completely, or saying "is an optional
feature and is only valid for amd64" or some such.
> +@end itemize
> +
--
Pedro Alves