From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31829 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2008 14:04:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 31819 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2008 14:04:21 -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; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:03:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60F1983EF; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993819809F; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KR65c-0003MI-35; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:03:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC] PPC: Skip call to __eabi in main() Message-ID: <20080807140339.GA12607@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20080721155343.404977d3@mesquite.lan> <1216701867.31797.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080722181252.03d9ce94@mesquite.lan> <20080728172221.3dc3764e@mesquite.lan> <1217616315.29334.44.camel@gargoyle> <20080806174037.7cfe6445@mesquite.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080806174037.7cfe6445@mesquite.lan> 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 05:40:37PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > With regard to my patch, I'd prefer to commit it in its present form > and then address improvements to PowerPC instruction decoding at a > later time. I considered using my preferred approach when I adjusted > my patch, but decided against doing so because a different approach > (that of using explicit masks and comparisons) was already in use. I think this is reasonable. > FWIW, this isn't the only approach that I find compelling. I recently > worked on a port which utilizes the instruction decoder in opcodes/. > This decoder is also used for the disassembler and simulator. It > completely decodes the instruction, returning a symbolic (via enums) > opcodes, and completely decoded instruction offsets, registers, etc. I wish other ports provided enough detail in libopcodes to do this! It's an excellent approach. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery