From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16161 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2004 23:18:13 -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 16142 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2004 23:18:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO desire.geoffk.org) (24.6.229.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 2004 23:18:10 -0000 Received: from desire.geoffk.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by desire.geoffk.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02NHSQ0001195; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:17:28 -0800 Received: (from geoffk@localhost) by desire.geoffk.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02NHQBR001191; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:17:26 -0800 Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:18:00 -0000 From: Geoff Keating Message-Id: <200401022317.i02NHQBR001191@desire.geoffk.org> To: cagney@gnu.org CC: kettenis@chello.nl, dje@watson.ibm.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com In-reply-to: <3FF5A069.1040306@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:46:33 -0500) Subject: Re: Incorrect DWARF-2 register numbers on PPC64? References: <200312182258.hBIMwgT25422@makai.watson.ibm.com> <200312201527.hBKFRHgI000712@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3FF5A069.1040306@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:46:33 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > I'd ignore GDB here. I think GCC, for the 64-bit SvR4 PPC ABI, should > use the correct numbers. If that means GDB tweaks, so be it. I agree with this. I'd even agree with changing the 32-bit numbering to be more correct. As I said elsewhere, there may be trouble with exception handling, but even then I'd support changing the numbers of registers that aren't caller-saved, to make GCC as correct as possible. -- - Geoffrey Keating