From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11896 invoked by alias); 19 May 2008 22:04:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 11884 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2008 22:04:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 May 2008 22:03:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4JM2YBE025996; Mon, 19 May 2008 18:02:34 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (vpn-14-72.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.72]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m4JM2XH3019751; Mon, 19 May 2008 18:02:33 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m4JM2WP2015450; Mon, 19 May 2008 18:02:32 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m4JM2WLP015447; Mon, 19 May 2008 18:02:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:15:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200805192202.m4JM2WLP015447@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: "Ulrich Weigand" CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200805192155.m4JLt197019746@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (uweigand@de.ibm.com) Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] Update remaining targets to value-based unwinding References: <200805192155.m4JLt197019746@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 > Thanks for testing! Do you know how those results compare to prior > versions (before Daniel's value-based unwinding changes)? Sorry, no. I needed two newlib patches just to get v850's tests to run. I happen to have those builds handy because I watch the gcc and simulator bits for them, that's all. > > m32c (two multilibs): > > > > # of expected passes 17068 > > # of unexpected failures 2758 > > In particular, this result looks a bit worrisome ... It's bad. The m32c is a weird chip (two stack pointers, 24 bit addresses), it will probably need Jim or Kevin to massage your patch to get it to work.