From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29922 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2003 15:57:43 -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 29906 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2003 15:57:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2003 15:57:43 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AD4Jq-00077F-E6 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:57:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [obish] More osabi comments Message-ID: <20031024155742.GA27261@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3F9948BA.4050201@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F9948BA.4050201@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00736.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:43:54AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > More comments the better ... > > Recent discussions to do with rs6000 compatibility left me wondering how > come "amd64 can run code for i386" wasn't getting a hit. The attached > comment explains why the test (both old and new) works for the 32-bit vs > 64-bit case. > > I also changed "atom" to the more common OO term "singleton". > > committed, > Andrew > @@ -333,6 +333,14 @@ > type that is compatible with the desired machine type. Right > now we simply return the first match, which is fine for now. > However, we might want to do something smarter in the future. */ > + /* NOTE: cagney/2003-10-23: The code for "a can_run_code_for b" > + is implemented using BFD's compatible method (a->compatible > + (b) == a -- the lowest common denominator between a and b is > + a). That method's definition of compatible may not be as you > + expect. For instance, while "amd64 can run code for i386" Did you mean to have another clause, or is this "while" left over? > + (or more generally "64-bit ISA can run code for the 32-bit > + ISA"). Fortunatly, BFD doesn't normally consider 32-bit and "Fortunately" > + 64-bit "compatible" so won't get a match. */ -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer