From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 815 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 04:55:10 -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 766 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 04:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pizda.ninka.net) (216.101.162.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 04:55:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA25780; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:45:48 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:55:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20020423.214548.14408285.davem@redhat.com> To: msnyder@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix sparc64 pop/push frame reg saving From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3CC5B6ED.7BFD1E5D@redhat.com> References: <20020420.013839.70807514.davem@redhat.com> <3CC5B6ED.7BFD1E5D@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00908.txt.bz2 From: Michael Snyder Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:33:01 -0700 David, I see that this is based on your renumbering of the sparc64 registers (submitted separately). I don't think that renumbering is allowable. Even if we disregarded embedded sparc64 targets, wouldn't this break Solaris? Solaris would not break, no. It is a shame that embedded will prevent a renumbering, since the numbers were choosen a little bit poorly, but what can we do :(