This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: PATCH: Remove amd64_linux_gregset64_reg_offset and regmap


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:12:08 -0700
>> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:09:29 -0700
>> >> From: "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> As we have discussed, this patch removes amd64_linux_gregset64_reg_offset
>> >> and regmap from i386/amd64 Linux targets. ?OK to install?
>> >
>> > The amd64 bits are ok. ?A small issue with the i386 bits below.
>> >> diff --git a/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c b/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c
>> >> index d559811..35bc3bd 100644
>> >> --- a/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c
>> >> +++ b/gdb/i386-linux-nat.c
>> >> @@ -245,18 +228,19 @@ void
>> >> ?fill_gregset (const struct regcache *regcache,
>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? elf_gregset_t *gregsetp, int regno)
>> >> ?{
>> >> - ?elf_greg_t *regp = (elf_greg_t *) gregsetp;
>> >> + ?gdb_byte *regp = (gdb_byte *) gregsetp;
>> >> ? ?int i;
>> >>
>> >> ? ?for (i = 0; i < I386_NUM_GREGS; i++)
>> >> ? ? ?if (regno == -1 || regno == i)
>> >> - ? ? ?regcache_raw_collect (regcache, i, regp + regmap[i]);
>> >> + ? ? ?regcache_raw_collect (regcache, i,
>> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? regp + i386_linux_gregset_reg_offset[i]);
>> >>
>> >> ? ?if ((regno == -1 || regno == I386_LINUX_ORIG_EAX_REGNUM)
>> >> ? ? ? ?&& I386_LINUX_ORIG_EAX_REGNUM
>> >> ? ? ? ? ?< gdbarch_num_regs (get_regcache_arch (regcache)))
>> >> ? ? ?regcache_raw_collect (regcache, I386_LINUX_ORIG_EAX_REGNUM,
>> >> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? regp + ORIG_EAX);
>> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? regp + 4 * ORIG_EAX);
>> >
>> > I think this should use an offset from i386_linux_gregset_reg_offset[]
>> > as well.
>> >
>>
>> Like this?
>
> Yeah, the long line is a bit of a pity, but yes, I think that's better.
>

I checked it in.

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.


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