From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29899 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2007 19:06:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 29891 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2007 19:06:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:06:47 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76BF17F74F for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:03:58 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l98J6flr1388792 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:06:43 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l98J6fvD024116 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:06:41 -0300 Received: from dyn531757.br.ibm.com ([9.18.238.24]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l98J6emZ024111; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:06:40 -0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC Call-clobbered registers testcase From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20071008185507.GA28479@caradoc.them.org> References: <1190644886.4375.2.camel@localhost> <1190726512.4376.0.camel@localhost> <20071006161230.GA10179@caradoc.them.org> <1191869140.4322.10.camel@localhost> <20071008185507.GA28479@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1191870400.4322.13.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 > I think this won't work without a bit of extra work to add the new > directory, e.g. during configure. But I can take care of that. > Yes. If the test runs on x86, they may not be in registers - so they > may still be known, if they were stored on the stack. It makes sense. I'll re-work this bit then. While at it i might go for the configure script changes as well. Regards, -- Luis Machado IBM Linux Technology Center e-mail: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com