From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9950 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2004 20:15:28 -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 9912 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2004 20:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2004 20:15:26 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2FKFQ07011092 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:15:26 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2FKFQS18818 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:15:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-70.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.70]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2FKFP4q012376 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:15:25 -0500 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i2FKFKcG017624 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:15:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:rs6000] Framefy rs6000 (and GNU/Linux PPC) Message-Id: <20040315131520.14d61b41@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <4055F5D1.1020306@gnu.org> References: <40428F53.5080502@gnu.org> <20040302160100.573bbadc@saguaro> <4045FB6B.9080700@gnu.org> <4055F5D1.1020306@gnu.org> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00328.txt.bz2 On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:28:33 -0500 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > This will leave AIX. At present it is handled with the blatant hack: > > > > + default: > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_save_dummy_frame_tos (gdbarch, generic_save_dummy_frame_tos); > > + set_gdbarch_believe_pcc_promotion (gdbarch, 1); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_pop_frame (gdbarch, rs6000_pop_frame); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_args_address (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_args_address); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_locals_address (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_args_address); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_saved_pc_after_call (gdbarch, rs6000_saved_pc_after_call); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frameless_function_invocation (gdbarch, rs6000_frameless_function_invocation); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_chain (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_chain); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_saved_pc (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_saved_pc); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_init_saved_regs (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_init_saved_regs); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_init_extra_frame_info (gdbarch, rs6000_init_extra_frame_info); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_init_frame_pc_first (gdbarch, rs6000_init_frame_pc_first); > > > > while that might be ok for the 6.1 branch, I don't think it is ok > > for the mainline. We've already waited too long for someone to > > frameify the PPC :-( Do you or Peter have timely plans for fixing > > that part of the code? > > Kevin, Peter? Perhaps. I'm checking into this now... Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9950 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2004 20:15:28 -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 9912 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2004 20:15:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2004 20:15:26 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2FKFQ07011092 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:15:26 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2FKFQS18818 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:15:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-70.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.70]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2FKFP4q012376 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:15:25 -0500 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i2FKFKcG017624 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:15:20 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:15:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:rs6000] Framefy rs6000 (and GNU/Linux PPC) Message-ID: <20040315131520.14d61b41@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <4055F5D1.1020306@gnu.org> References: <40428F53.5080502@gnu.org> <20040302160100.573bbadc@saguaro> <4045FB6B.9080700@gnu.org> <4055F5D1.1020306@gnu.org> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00328.txt Message-ID: <20040315201500.-gzYofH2zkdAQBB7xsbJAK-LeTCNIWXO8SlCoKcd8FU@z> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:28:33 -0500 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > This will leave AIX. At present it is handled with the blatant hack: > > > > + default: > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_save_dummy_frame_tos (gdbarch, generic_save_dummy_frame_tos); > > + set_gdbarch_believe_pcc_promotion (gdbarch, 1); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_pop_frame (gdbarch, rs6000_pop_frame); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_args_address (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_args_address); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_locals_address (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_args_address); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_saved_pc_after_call (gdbarch, rs6000_saved_pc_after_call); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frameless_function_invocation (gdbarch, rs6000_frameless_function_invocation); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_chain (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_chain); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_saved_pc (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_saved_pc); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_frame_init_saved_regs (gdbarch, rs6000_frame_init_saved_regs); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_init_extra_frame_info (gdbarch, rs6000_init_extra_frame_info); > > + set_gdbarch_deprecated_init_frame_pc_first (gdbarch, rs6000_init_frame_pc_first); > > > > while that might be ok for the 6.1 branch, I don't think it is ok > > for the mainline. We've already waited too long for someone to > > frameify the PPC :-( Do you or Peter have timely plans for fixing > > that part of the code? > > Kevin, Peter? Perhaps. I'm checking into this now... Kevin