From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20694 invoked by alias); 11 May 2006 10:16:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 20673 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2006 10:16:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from w099.z064220152.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net (HELO duck.specifix.com) (64.220.152.99) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 10:16:19 +0000 Received: from [::1] (duck.specifix.com [64.220.152.99]) by duck.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAACFCAB; Thu, 11 May 2006 03:16:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Fred Fish Reply-To: fnf@specifix.com To: Richard Sandiford Subject: Re: [RFC] Passing MIPS debug hints between gcc and gdb Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200605101206.01433.fnf@specifix.com> <87y7x9aw12.fsf@talisman.home> In-Reply-To: <87y7x9aw12.fsf@talisman.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605110617.01171.fnf@specifix.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 On Thursday 11 May 2006 02:57, Richard Sandiford wrote: > You're right: the size of everything is determined by the combination of > the ABI "name" and long size. The gdb patch I mentioned did do that IIRC. > (I didn't write that patch myself, and my memory's hazy.) It was certainly > the intention that gdb work this out for itself. OK. I can generate a patch that does that. > Using empty sections was always a hack, to be honest (modelled on the > old .gcc_compiled_v3 thing, whatever it was called). I suppose we > should be using note sections really. Yeah, I thought about putting the hints in a single section that could have it's contents merged by the linker and duplicates removed. > I'd be OK with relaxing the condition to EABI || o64 if it's o64 you > need this for. Yes, it is o64 where I originally found the problem. > I suppose we should make the incorrect -mlong* option an error for > other ABIs. (Another one for the TODO list.) OK, though it seemed to work fine with at least one other ABI (-mabi=32). I didn't test them all. -Fred