This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Documentation for MPX.
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: "Tedeschi, Walfred" <walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com>
- Cc: palves at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:12:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Documentation for MPX.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1385636042-10592-1-git-send-email-walfred dot tedeschi at intel dot com> <83mwko8ev7 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <AC542571535E904D8E8ADAE745D60B191B1DDEA5 at IRSMSX104 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: "Tedeschi, Walfred" <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> CC: "palves@redhat.com" <palves@redhat.com>, "gdb-patches@sourceware.org"
> <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:41:39 +0000
>
> About the "Architecture": You have made a comment on another place about Raw values/Architecture values. That was changed. The line is this one:
> +This way the raw value can be accessed via bnd0raw@dots{}bnd3raw. Any
> +change on bnd0@dots{}bnd3 or bnd0raw@dots{}bnd3raw is reflect on its
> +counterpart.
> Before:
> +This way the architecture value can be accessed via bnd0raw...bnd3raw.
> +Any change on bnd0..bnd3 or bnd0raw...bnd3raw is reflect on its
> +counterpart. When displaying
OK, but I meant to use "raw" everywhere, not just in that part.
> I will add here a list of changes in V2:
> 1. Added @cindex for MPX and @def for MPX.
> 2.Exchanged "..." by @dots{}
> 3.Fix typo on "Architecture registers...." as mentioned.
> 4.Example is fixed (using "@{" for "{" and "@}" for "}").
Right.
> About the phrase:
> >+Architecture registers @samp{BND0} through @samp{BND3} are
> > +represented in @value{GDBN} as @samp{bnd0raw} through @samp{bnd3raw}.
>
> My intention was to emphasize that the BND register, as presented on Intel manual, is represented in GDB by bndraw. Therefore the use of " Architecture registers".
> Since we have already defined that BND are the architecture register we could omit the "Architecture Registers on the phrase writing like:
>
> >+@samp{BND0} through @samp{BND3} are
> > +represented in @value{GDBN} as @samp{bnd0raw} through @samp{bnd3raw}.
>
> What do you think?
Fine with me, thanks.