From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17779 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2008 16:43:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17759 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2008 16:43:21 -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; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:43:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D2F98366; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:42:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2DD98011; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:42:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KCdVq-0001au-1I; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:42:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] Update remaining targets to value-based unwinding Message-ID: <20080628164257.GA5827@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805182015.m4IKFQmx030794@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <20080529164003.GB11646@caradoc.them.org> <200805291645.m4TGjCRu006229@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805291645.m4TGjCRu006229@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00542.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 06:45:12PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:40:03 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:15:25PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Hi Ulrich, > > > > At this point I think you've gotten all the likely testing; is it time > > to commit this? > > I'm already looking at m88k; if you commit it Ulrich, can you leave > that bit out? Mark, did you have a chance to finish m88k? Ulrich, how do you feel about committing the non-m88k bits now? Or I can take care of it if that's easier. I'm working on removing some warts from the version of inlined function support I posted. This requires careful reasoning about each of the frame_*_unwind and frame_unwind_* methods, which is much easier when they are not used in any unwinders; so I'm working from a tree with Ulrich's patch applied. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery