From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21600 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2002 19:04:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21591 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 19:04:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 19:04:43 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76Ipkl04589 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:51:46 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76J4eu14238; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:04:40 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (IDENT:mhzeVBUs5t93qE9Y6ronGEK+a8qT4Jip@romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76J4de15412; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:04:39 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g76J4bt30998; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:04:37 -0700 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:04:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020806190436.ZM30997@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [RFA] mips-tdep.c: Set mips_default_saved_regsize to 8 for N32" (Aug 5, 11:14pm) References: <1020731225440.ZM24078@localhost.localdomain> <3D49C9F0.58A343FA@redhat.com> <3D4F3EFA.1020306@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFA] mips-tdep.c: Set mips_default_saved_regsize to 8 for N32 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 On Aug 5, 11:14pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > With this change in place, the following FAILs are fixed for n32: > > > > > > That's all? When I tried it, it fixed almost 300 fails for me, > > and caused only one (possible) regression. > > > > Andrew, I'd recommend this one for approval. Surely setting > > it to 4 for N32 was an oversight? > > I'd suspect a multi-arch conversion error. > > Yes, ok. It is definitly more correct then ``4''. Committed. Kevin