clayborg added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/elf-core/elf-core-enums.h:58
+enum class CoreRegset : uint8_t { GPR, FPR, PPC_VMX, PPC_VSX };
+
----------------
labath wrote:
> clayborg wrote:
> > Seems weird to have PPC_VMX and PPC_VSX define in a CoreRegSet? Do these
> > need to be specific for each arch? Why is everyone trying to use these?
> >
> >
> This enum represents all possible register sets that we can find in the elf
> core files. Not all register contexts are expected to use all of them -- each
> register context just plucks out those that he knows about (if they were
> present in the core file).
>
> The enum (and the corresponding map) are intended as a replacement for the
> list of member variable register sets in the ThreadData struct. `vregset`
> (and the previous ppc64 patch was about to add one more) is already quite
> architecture-specific.
>
> While I do think that this is an improvement over the list-of-members
> solution, I am also not entirely happy with having these arch-specific sets
> in the enum.
>
> The alternative I thought of just now is to have a a plain vector instead of
> a map for register set data. Then, at the generic level, we will just be
> dealing with "register set 0", "register set 1", etc.. and when we consult
> the RegisterInfoInterface class, it will tell us that "register set 0" is in
> fact GPR, register set 2 is VMX, etc.
>
> What do you think?
I like the vector idea a bit better and I like the idea of the
RegisterInfoInterface telling us that "register set at index 0" is GPR, etc.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40133
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
