From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27575 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2007 14:22:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 27566 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Dec 2007 14:22:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:22:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEC52A962D; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id eZ-8urJoV60P; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAF42A961C; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7BBCAE7ACA; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:22:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [i386/stabs] Arguments of main on gcc >= 4.1 Message-ID: <20071217142204.GI9022@adacore.com> References: <47503C57.6010308@portugalmail.pt> <20071203182540.GB14306@adacore.com> <20071217004444.GA14356@caradoc.them.org> <20071217041159.GB9022@adacore.com> <20071217133121.GA23586@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071217133121.GA23586@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00272.txt.bz2 > I think that the major difference between a GDB bug and a GCC bug is > whether we have to get GCC fixed - either way, since it's been in > several releases, handling it in GDB is at least worth considering. That makes sense. I put a "patch champion" hat on and had a look at the proposed patch. If I understand correctly, it looks like the code is detecting stack alignment code, and if it does, then it considers that the parameters will be relative to the arguments region address. I wonder how this all works if GCC < 4.1 is being used. -- Joel