From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-57268-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30294 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 15:10:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 30239 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 15:10:56 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:10:36 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m6EF9EjL000833; 	Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:09:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id m6EF9EUY024706; 	Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:09:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:10:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200807141509.m6EF9EUY024706@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <200807091648.10557.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro 	Alves on Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:48:10 +0100)
Subject: Re: Fix Ericsson DICOS inferior function calls
References: <200807072309.56077.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200807072256.m67MuLP2010832@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200807091648.10557.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:48:10 +0100
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Monday 07 July 2008 23:56:21, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> 
> > I think we should get rid of generic_push_dummy_code(), and instead
> > require that each target that puts the dummy breakpoint on the stack
> > provides its own push_dummy_code() function.  Could you provide one
> > for DICOS?
> 
> Something like this?

Looks good to me.

> It looks like the only other target that uses ON_STACK and doesn't
> define a push_dummy_code is spu-tdep.c.

Let's see if I can convince the IBM guys to do something similar, and
then we can remove the somewhat bogus generic_push_dummy_code().

Thanks,

Mark