From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13746 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2008 15:58:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 13721 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2008 15:57:58 -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, 11 Jan 2008 15:57:38 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C0D9811D; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:57:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CBE98100; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:57:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JDMGE-0000qc-3U; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:57:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Luis Machado Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Linux-specific ppc32 ABI Message-ID: <20080111155733.GA3240@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Luis Machado , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1199991624.3343.19.camel@gargoyle> <20080111060629.GC12954@adacore.com> <1200066920.26270.9.camel@gargoyle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200066920.26270.9.camel@gargoyle> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:55:20PM -0200, Luis Machado wrote: > > 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. > > Yes. This would work, but putting linux specific code inside the > ppc-sysv-tdep.c file doesn't look quite right. But if there isn't a > better way of doing this, should be OK. For practical reasons, this is how it is usually done. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery