From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28541 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2005 17:53:20 -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 28478 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2005 17:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dublin.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.154) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2005 17:53:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (province.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.214]) by filtered-dublin.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877E0229E40; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:53:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from dublin.act-europe.fr ([10.10.0.154]) by localhost (province.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.214]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05702-01; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:53:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from berne.act-europe.fr (berne.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.165]) by dublin.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6E0229E3F; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:53:12 +0100 (MET) Received: by berne.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 560) id 6992F592B; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:53:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:53:00 -0000 From: Jerome Guitton To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org Subject: Re: [RFA/erc32 sim] build errors Message-ID: <20050303175312.GB15766@adacore.com> References: <20050221181001.GA26476@adacore.com> <20050303145856.GA15842@adacore.com> <20050303171910.GA18681@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050303171910.GA18681@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz (drow@false.org): > OK, I suppose. Does this "OK, I suppose" stands for "OK, I will have a look at your patch" or "OK, you can commit this patch"? ;-) > Does the sim actually work? Yes, it does. We are running our testsuite on it every day without problem. There is one pretty serious bug with the simulation of interruptions, though... I have not investigated it yet. > FYI, using .text in asm() is highly bogus - especially in recent GCC. > But this predates your change. Mmmm, indeed... I wonder why it was done that way. I will have a look at that. -- Jerome