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] |
On Tuesday 07 May 2013 10:19:06 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 05/07/2013 03:08 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > > On 05/07/2013 02:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> Fortunately, that last header there is pretty damn good -- it handles > >> lots of edge cases, the code is nice & tight (uses gcc asm operands > >> rather than manual movs), and is already almost a general library type > >> header. > > > > The top of the header says: > > > > /* Helper file for i386 platform. Runtime check for MMX/SSE/SSE2/AVX > > * support. Copied from gcc 4.4. > > > > I'd rather not fork the gcc file. If we need to wrap its > > functions/macros for gdb's purpose, I'd rather do that in a separate > > file that > > #includes (a copy of) gcc's, verbatim, so we can pull updates from > > upstream easily. In fact, diffing our copy against gcc's shows we're > > already out of date --- see below. The bits removed are gdb-specific > > additions. > > > > I wonder whether pushing the file down to libiberty, so both gcc > > and gdb could share it would be viable? > > Actually, it seems like __get_cpuid is a gcc built-in nowadays, but I don't > when it was added. We could make use of it, and only fallback to the > header copy if the host compiler doesn't have the builtin. yes, gcc introduced a cpuid.h starting with gcc-4.3.0. i wanted to focus on getting everyone on the same header first before tackling that. i didn't think people would be ok with x86 builds requiring gcc-4.3.0 ? -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |