labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41245#955462, @krytarowski wrote:
> Personally I prefer the original code as it looks easier to implement FSAVE. Maybe we could delete at least one layer then (make FPR a union which contains fxsave and xsave members)? Also, I am curious: is your remark about FSAVE hypothetical or do you have plans about that? Is there an OS that vends registers in the FSAVE layout? My feeling is that if you really wanted to implement the FSAVE layout you would run into a class of problems anyway, precisely because the layout is not the same as these two structures. (e.g. right now the way that the offset of the xmm registers is defined does not take into account whether you are using XSAVE or FXSAVE -- the only reason this works is because the two offsets are the same). https://reviews.llvm.org/D41245 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
