From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14502 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2003 20:16:39 -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 14494 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2003 20:16:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2003 20:16:38 -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 h8NKGb108098 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:16:37 -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 h8NKGac22934 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:16:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8NKGaRC029602 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:16:36 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 54C112CC8C; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:26:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16240.44135.87461.106684@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:16:00 -0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: SH patch 2 (was Re: [RFA] SH: Deprecate deprecated functions, use new frame interface) In-Reply-To: <20030922150831.GA17905@cygbert.vinschen.de> References: <20030908165510.GK1859@cygbert.vinschen.de> <16226.1322.230352.450541@localhost.redhat.com> <20030915160111.GA9283@cygbert.vinschen.de> <16231.17730.828347.741094@localhost.redhat.com> <20030916172606.GU9981@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20030916173038.GA25459@nevyn.them.org> <20030922143254.GR9981@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20030922144405.GA20343@nevyn.them.org> <20030922150831.GA17905@cygbert.vinschen.de> X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 Corinna Vinschen writes: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:44:05AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:32:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > What does that mean? How does that affect the approval of my code > > > as it is now? > > > > I can't answer the second question, but I can answer the first. > > > > DW_OP_piece is not supported yet. Kevin B. put together a nice little > > patch for a strictly limited case of DW_OP_piece triggered by the > > PowerPC e500 port; I don't know if this SH occurance is similar or a > > more general usage. > > > > You may want to remove the bit which enables dwarf2 unwinding until > > this is fixed? Just a thought. > > I don't think that's necessary. The results with dwarf2 unwinding are > 1 FAIL less than without dwarf2 unwinding. Removing the dwarf2 > unwinding might result in forgetting it. Keeping it in will remind us > that the dwarf2 unwinder still needs a bit of work. > I think so too. But I'd like to see if something can be done for SH similar to the i386_convert_register_p method. elena > Corinna > > -- > Corinna Vinschen > Cygwin Developer > Red Hat, Inc.