On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 20:08 +0200, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 07:50:34PM +0200, Micha? Górny wrote: > > Well, if we are only to consider new registers, then we're talking about > > 16 'pure' ymm registers + 32 zmm registers + 8 kN registers + 1 state > > register, multiply by two... 114 PT_* requests? > > Integers are plenty, but the core file format issue makes this aproach > unusable anyway. > > Still I think we should not create too many random processor register groups. > > We already have very strange ones (XMMREGS and VECREGS). Maybe we should just > have one ALLREGS thing (identical to the core note) and then discuss how > to properly make that sanely versioned and self describing? >
That is somewhat the idea of option b., and what Intel&co seem to be aiming it. With the exception of the two old register groups being left separate, PT_*XSTATE would cover everything else. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
