From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5115 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2007 14:47:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 5106 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2007 14:47:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:47:47 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D1C982F2; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:47:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8763982F1; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:47:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HzD5i-0002qQ-NF; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:47:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: ColdFire/fido support Message-ID: <20070615144758.GA10833@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200705051337.02114.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200706081458.36645.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20070612133846.GA7815@caradoc.them.org> <200706151417.25052.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706151417.25052.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00292.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:17:24PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Tuesday 12 June 2007 17:38, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > I suppose I can add file-based detection for fido, just like it's done for coldfire, > > > but I don't think removing XML-based detection is right. What do you think? > > > > Right, sorry - I know what I meant to say, but I didn't say it. > > > > Float return behavior is not a property of the target at all; it's a > > property of the compiler options used. decr_pc_after_break is a > > target property, though, so we should trust the target. This isn't > > important, though, so feel free to commit without changing this. If > > it causes any problems we can clean it up later. > > Ok, excellent. > > I attach a patch that differs only by non-taking of address of builtin_types. OK? I also wrote: > This is mostly OK. Please add a Makefile.in update for the new > #include. Also, we've added XML support for another target. So it > needs a new section in the manual describing which targets support > XML registers, and which registers are required. It does still need those. Other than that it's OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery