From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9099 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2005 20:37:38 -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 9071 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2005 20:37:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2005 20:37:35 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D8Oyo-0006dP-Fq for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:37:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New GDB target iq2000 Message-ID: <20050307203730.GA24983@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050304220104.GA14522@nevyn.them.org> <200503051128.j25BSruw007318@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050305164451.GA8398@nevyn.them.org> <200503051813.j25IDCxt016723@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050305193739.GA13304@nevyn.them.org> <200503052017.j25KHjOK016915@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050305202034.GA15313@nevyn.them.org> <20050307100835.GP2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20050307140352.GA4759@nevyn.them.org> <20050307201708.GX2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050307201708.GX2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:17:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 7 09:03, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:08:35AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Mar 5 15:20, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:17:45PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > Yup. Although the lower-limit for first-line breakpoints may cause > > > > > bogus parameter values to be printed. I consider that less a problem > > > > > than my program unexpectedly running to completion though. The > > > > > problem is that some people tend to think differently and we never > > > > > reached consensus about it. > > > > > > > > Well, it makes sense to me. It's clear that the FRV and submitted > > > > iq2000 ports have different heuristics for these two cases; it would be > > > > good to cover both of them in common code. > > > > > > This is rather getting a generic discussion to me. What about the > > > iq2000 port itself? Does it make sense to defer iq2000 until after > > > the generic problem has been solved? > > > > No, it doesn't. Did you see the patch I sent you on Friday night? > > I've tried it and it has two FAILs more than the original version of > iq2000_skip_prologue, the two break.exp FAILs we already know: > > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: breakpoint small function, optimized file > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: run until breakpoint set at small function, optimized file Just a guess but - this is probably because you sent me "break" rather than "breako2", the actual optimized binary. May I have another shot at it? In the mean time, this is drawing out too long; I'm going to review the port without attention to this issue this afternoon. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC