From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47042-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1588 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 14:58:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 1580 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 14:58:21 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:58:17 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l05EwAEc011046; 	Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:58:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l05EwAKw026568; 	Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:58:10 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:58:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200701051458.l05EwAKw026568@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: brobecker@adacore.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070105143728.GV17211@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker 	on Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:37:28 +0400)
Subject: Re: PING: [RFA/i386] 2 more patterns in i386_analyze_stack_align
References: <20061220104945.GB27642@adacore.com> <20061231060844.GP3640@adacore.com> <200612311215.kBVCF75Z010607@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070105064916.GS17211@adacore.com> <200701051104.l05B4xl1024647@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070105143728.GV17211@adacore.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:37:28 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>

> > Ah wait, that's true even for "absolute" code.  I had a quick look at
> > the GCC code and it seems to always treat %ebx as callee-saved.  So
> > I'm happy with leaving it out, but you could add a comment saying so
> > to prevent us from having this same discussion in about two months
> > ;-).
> 
> Sure! How does the attached patch look? Does it contain enough info?

More than enough.  Please commit after adding the missing space before
"GCC should never...".

> 2007-01-05  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
>         * i386-tdep.c (i386_analyze_stack_align): Add comment.