This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/8] AARCH64 SVE: Increse max register sizes
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Alan Hayward <alan dot hayward at arm dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:53:07 +0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] AARCH64 SVE: Increse max register sizes
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <D46B0D70.154DB%alan.hayward@arm.com> <20161212181032.GC25542@E107787-LIN> <D4757157.1649A%alan.hayward@arm.com> <20161213114742.GF25542@E107787-LIN>
> > >Joel expressed the willingness that we should make MAX_REGISTER_SIZE
> > >gdbarch specific last time when it was changed from 32 to 64.
> > >https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-09/msg00245.html
> > >I think we should make MAX_REGISTER_SIZE gdbarch specific, or stop
> > >using it at all.
> >
> > I’m happy to do this if that’s what people want. I avoided doing it
> > because I
> > didn’t want to subtly break something and it’s going to be quite a large
> > change -
> > I might submit it a set of patches by itself.
> >
>
> You can start from changing amd64-tdep.c and frame.c, which are
> interesting to most of people here. It shouldn't take long to finish
> the patch, and post it to get feedback quickly. If people agree/like
> the change, then you can move on changing the rest in the same way.
I agree. Let's separate this patch from the infrastructure rework.
In particular, I don't remember at the time if I was considering
the impact of making turning the max register size into a dynamic
value - I am thinking a lot of code might be using it in expressions
that assume it is constant (array of MAX_REGISTER_SIZE bytes).
Do people agree that this is an idea worth pursuing? At the moment,
I'm not sure myself...
--
Joel