[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D91728: [lldb] [Process/Utility] Declare register overlaps between ST and MM [WIP]

2020-11-19 Thread Michał Górny via Phabricator via lldb-commits
mgorny updated this revision to Diff 306363. mgorny added a comment. Updated to cover i386, reformatted the macro. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91728/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91728 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterContextPOSIX_x86.cpp

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D91728: [lldb] [Process/Utility] Declare register overlaps between ST and MM [WIP]

2020-11-19 Thread Michał Górny via Phabricator via lldb-commits
mgorny added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterInfos_x86_64.h:93 { \ #reg #i, nullptr, sizeof(uint64_t), \

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D91728: [lldb] [Process/Utility] Declare register overlaps between ST and MM [WIP]

2020-11-19 Thread Pavel Labath via Phabricator via lldb-commits
labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. I don't know omitting this had any practical effects (my experiments with rax were... inconclusive) , but it definitely sounds like the right to do. Comment at:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D91728: [lldb] [Process/Utility] Declare register overlaps between ST and MM [WIP]

2020-11-18 Thread Michał Górny via Phabricator via lldb-commits
mgorny added a comment. @labath, what do you think about this approach? What really sucks is that we have to repeat the whole voodoo for i386 and amd64 separately. Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterInfos_x86_64.h:93 {