From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17270 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2008 21:16:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 17256 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2008 21:16:29 -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; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:16:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5622A9F92; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:16:09 -0400 (EDT) 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 WtWX76vxPxOI; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:16:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6371F2A9EC3; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:16:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4FAB2E7ACD; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:34:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "Roberts, Dennis" Cc: "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for 64-Bit Core Files on AIX Message-ID: <20080416211607.GD3631@adacore.com> References: <4813EA4A50D35A44906A74A5E341D0B61A03388643@SQMAILBOX1.sunquestinfo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4813EA4A50D35A44906A74A5E341D0B61A03388643@SQMAILBOX1.sunquestinfo.com> 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00309.txt.bz2 Dennis, > 2008-04-15 Dennis Roberts > > * rs6000-tdep.c (rs6000_gdbarch_init): Use the BFD architecture, > rather than a hard-coded architecture, for xcoff executables. I have reviewed the change, and it looks OK (and can be applied independently of the BFD part). But I just wanted to make sure that you have indeed tested this change both in 32 and 64 bit modes. Is that correct? The change is sufficiently small that it qualifies as a non-legally significant change (patch repeated at the end of this email for quick reference), but if you think you are going to make more contributions, I would encourage you to provide a copyright assignment to the FSF. We could then offer you write access to the repository. I can help you get started if you like. In the meantime, I will commit your change as soon as you have confirmed testing. Thank you, -- Joel > diff -rc src.orig/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c src/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c > *** src.orig/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c Wed Feb 20 07:34:43 2008 > --- src/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c Tue Apr 15 13:33:10 2008 > *************** > *** 3307,3324 **** > wordsize = 4; > } > > ! if (!from_xcoff_exec) > ! { > ! arch = info.bfd_arch_info->arch; > ! mach = info.bfd_arch_info->mach; > ! } > ! else > ! { > ! arch = bfd_arch_powerpc; > ! bfd_default_set_arch_mach (&abfd, arch, 0); > ! info.bfd_arch_info = bfd_get_arch_info (&abfd); > ! mach = info.bfd_arch_info->mach; > ! } > > /* For e500 executables, the apuinfo section is of help here. Such > section contains the identifier and revision number of each > --- 3307,3315 ---- > wordsize = 4; > } > > ! /* Get the architecture and machine from the BFD. */ > ! arch = info.bfd_arch_info->arch; > ! mach = info.bfd_arch_info->mach; > > /* For e500 executables, the apuinfo section is of help here. Such > section contains the identifier and revision number of each