Re: [RFC] Design considerations for XSAVE Extended Area getters/setters

[Michał Górny <mgorny%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

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