From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4111 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2003 03:04:19 -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 4051 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2003 03:04:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (193.252.52.151) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Jan 2003 03:04:18 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id BB200D34AE; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:04:14 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:04:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK? Message-ID: <20030120030414.GK5477@gnat.com> References: <3E2B59FE.8090401@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E2B59FE.8090401@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00677.txt.bz2 > I recently changed the default for CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION from ON_STACK to > AT_ENTRY. I suspect the HP/PA 64 currently assumes ON_STACK. > > Anyone able to check this theory? I'll try to have a look today (thanks for this notice!). -- Joel