From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28169 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2002 23:30:48 -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 28140 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2002 23:30:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fred.ninemoons.com) (68.14.214.217) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2002 23:30:45 -0000 Received: (from fnf@localhost) by fred.ninemoons.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3BNUr827339; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:30:53 -0700 From: Fred Fish Message-Id: <200204112330.g3BNUr827339@fred.ninemoons.com> Subject: Re: RFC: Avoid calling XXX_skip_prologue for assembly code To: jimb@redhat.com Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:30:00 -0000 Cc: fnf@ninemoons.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: fnf@redhat.com In-Reply-To: from "Jim Blandy" at Oct 11, 2001 04:18:28 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 (Note: I'm revisiting an old patch submitted in Oct 2001) > Would you be willing to try gdb.asm/asm-source.exp against a D10V sim > with this change? I'm pretty sure your change is going to break that > test. If so, you could fix the failure by changing the test to set > the breakpoint after the `enter' sequences. I just built a D10V toolchain with a recent gdb, and ran the full testsuite with and without this change. There was no difference in the testsuite results. All of the asm-source.exp tests passed both with and without this patch installed. OK to check in this patch? -Fred