krytarowski added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/FreeBSDRemote/NativeRegisterContextFreeBSD_x86_64.cpp:448-449 + + assert(info.xsave_mask & XFEATURE_ENABLED_X87); + assert(info.xsave_mask & XFEATURE_ENABLED_SSE); + ---------------- emaste wrote: > mgorny wrote: > > mgorny wrote: > > > emaste wrote: > > > > I wonder if these should be an error rather than assertion? > > > I suppose the question is if they ever happen in real use. If they do, we > > > should probably handle them gracefully. Otherwise, assertion should be > > > sufficient. > > I can actually answer the first question myself. According to Intel's > > manual, it is impossible to disable x87 bit. IIRC attempt to unset it on > > XCR0 will raise some fault. > > > > The second question is basically whether under any circumstances can > > FreeBSD kernel disable SSE on XCR0 (this code is only used on systems > > supporting XSAVE). > I guess my point is that having these bits unset would indicate a kernel > issue or bug, or maybe hardware issue, but never indicate an error or invalid > operation in lldb itself. > > Either way I think there is no practical impact, it's not actually going to > happen. If we assert on this code we more trigger software bug in lldb rather than a hardware specifics. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89193/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89193 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
