From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:31:43 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kumar Gala Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: RFC: generic vector unit support? Message-ID: <20021003213143.GA9675@nevyn.them.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 04:20:14PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > I am not sure about what to do about ptrace. We extended the interface > to have two new request types (PTRACE_GETVRREGS, PTRACE_SETVRREGS) > which return the full altivec state (all registers, vscr, vrsave). We > could overload these request types to return all the 'vector' state > depending on which processor we are. This would mean debuggers would > have to know which processor we are to know how big of a buffer to have > for ptrace calls, the memory layout, etc. I'd rather see you do it the other way around: Add PTRACE_GETSPEREGS in the e500, so that the debugger can use ptrace to figure out which registers are available. > We also extend generic vector idea to allow dumping of altivec/SPE > register state into core files (which we do not do currently). That's a great idea. Again, I think Altivec and SPE registers should be tagged differently even though they can't coexist. Otherwise, it sounds like a good idea to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/