From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26826 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2008 06:06:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 26812 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2008 06:06:56 -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; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:06:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253A42A96D5; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:06:37 -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 aYTcwSz-dUjW; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA2F2A96D3; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 587FCE7ACB; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:06:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Luis Machado Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Linux-specific ppc32 ABI Message-ID: <20080111060629.GC12954@adacore.com> References: <1199991624.3343.19.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1199991624.3343.19.camel@gargoyle> 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 > The question is, would it be safe to assume that SYSV would comply with > Linux ABI's especifications for ppc32, so it would only be necessary to > change the SYSV implementation, or would it be a better idea to just > write new Linux-specific code in ppc-linux-tdep.c? Is there a different ABI for Linux on powerpc? > I presume it's better to just write new Linux-specific code in case we > need to treat those ABI's differently in the future. Assuming a difference in ABI does exist: How about an extra flag inside the gdbarch_tdep structure that you'll be using inside the push dummy call? It would be a shame duplicate this function when most of it is common. -- Joel