This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] rs6000-tdep.c: more e500 support



> Hmm... it looks like BookE is using 6 for its primary opcode (which are
> the most significant 6 bits). I wonder if this could cause conflicts
> with other cores which also extend the base PPC instruction set.
> > A quick Google search reveals:
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-10/msg00186.html
> > So apparently there can be conflicts. It's not clear to me if there
> are conflicts for the instructions that we care about, but I wonder
> if it might not be better to add a conjunct which restricts these tests
> to the BookE architecture. (Maybe it'd be a good idea to squirrel
> away the v->arch and v->mach values from rs6000_gdbarch_init() into
> the gdbarch_tdep struct. I guess you could also check to see if
> tdep->ppc_ev0_regnum is not -1.)
>
Yes, conflicts also with Altivec instructions. I would prefer to save
the architecture & machine pair, rather than check the registers.
Try:

const struct bfd_arch_info *gdbarch_bfd_arch_info (gdbarch)

Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]