Re: i386: Are we settled?

[Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>]

> Maybe it would be a good idea to change the #defines of the register
> numbers such that they match the names that GDB uses in its output,
> i.e. FISEG_REGNUM instead of FCS_REGNUM, etc.

Yeah, that was the original intent, but I forgot to change the CPP
symbol names when I renamed the registers.  Rats; I wish I'd noticed
this before Chris and Eli started adapting their tm-*.h files.  Let's
wait on this until folks have submitted changes for their ports, and
then I can make all the changes atomically with `M-x
tags-query-replace'.

>    Notably missing from this list are any other questions about tm-i386.h
>    as it stands.  Am I correct in thinking that the other x86 port
>    maintainers think it's basically sane?
> 
> Yes.  For the Hurd the only things I have to define in tm-i386gnu.h
> are Mach/Hurd specific.

Great.  Three down, three to go.  I'm waiting for JKJ, HJL, and JTC.

>    (Again, I'm excluding issues related to `long double'; I do expect
>    folks to retain their own definitions for coping with that.)
> 
> I think we should try to unify those too, but that might be done later.

Right --- these and the Pascal issues can be dealt with next.