This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] aarch64/gdbserver: fix floating point registers display
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe dot waroquiers at skynet dot be>, Catalin Udma <catalin dot udma at freescale dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:35:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64/gdbserver: fix floating point registers display
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1407835166-827-1-git-send-email-catalin dot udma at freescale dot com> <53E9E1C2 dot 6010707 at arm dot com> <53E9EB9A dot 7000304 at codesourcery dot com> <1407932734 dot 2182 dot 67 dot camel at soleil> <53EB5C86 dot 4030307 at codesourcery dot com> <53EB7965 dot 8070208 at arm dot com>
On 08/13/2014 03:42 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 13/08/14 13:39, Yao Qi wrote:
>> On 08/13/2014 08:25 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote:
>>> The 'it' in 'fix it' is ambiguous to me.
>>> Does the 'it' mean:
>>> fix aarch64-core.xml to change cpsr to 32 bits ?
>>
>> That was what I meant, however ....
>>
>>> or does that confirm the initial proposal i.e.
>>> fix e.g. aarch64.dat to change cpsr to 64 bits ?
>>
>> ... I find a patch changed cpsr to 64 bit in last Dec.
>>
>> [PATCH] AARCH64: Change cpsr type to be 64bit.
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-12/msg00720.html
>>
>> and looks aarch64.dat was not updated together in this patch.
>>
>> I am sure that aarch64.dat and aarch64-core.xml are not in sync,
>> but I don't know which way to go, sorry.
>>
>
> Changing the XML doesn't sound like the right way forward, the XML can
> be embedded into other components as part of the register description
> interface.
>
> Hmm, I can't see where anyone ever formally approved that change. In
> fact, Mark K commented at the time:
>
> "Basing GDB's fundamentals on a particular OS's ptrace(2)
> implementation is a bad idea."
>
> So it seems to me that that change was indeed incorrect and should
> probably be reverted (at least in its current incarnation).
I agree, and I'm surprised to learn the patch went in. :-/
Thanks,
Pedro Alves