From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16973 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2003 20:22:10 -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 16965 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2003 20:22:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2003 20:22:10 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8TKM9129173 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:22:09 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8TKM9c19927; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:22:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-46.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8TKM7TX003420; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:22:08 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h8TKM2B15767; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:22:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:22:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030929202202.ZM15766@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[rfa/6.0] fix aix inferior calls" (Sep 29, 4:05pm) References: <3F789078.3000100@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [rfa/6.0] fix aix inferior calls Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, peter.schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00635.txt.bz2 On Sep 29, 4:05pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The PowerOpen doco requires at least 220 bytes of space, beyond the end > of stack, but forgets to mention that 220 isn't frame [16 byte] aligned. > Consequently, an assert checking stack alignment fails and inferior > calls on AIX doesn't work. That will learn me for not checking the math. > > Anyway, ok for "the late breaking 6.0 patch"? I didn't see a patch attached, but if it allocates 220 bytes of space and then allocates any extra space to get to a 16 byte alignment, it's okay with me. (Anything which is roughly equivalent is fine too - e.g, aligning first and then allocating 224 bytes is okay too.) Kevin