From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25669 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2011 05:46:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 25657 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2011 05:45:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:45:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41D02BAC98; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:45:51 -0500 (EST) 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 8SwTqJ5vcwXs; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:45:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399DF2BAC69; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:45:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DB0E114586B; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:45:45 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Edjunior Barbosa Machado , Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: dw2-ranges: declare function descriptors for ppc64 compatibility Message-ID: <20110217054545.GA15527@adacore.com> References: <1297882017-19802-1-git-send-email-emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1297882017-19802-1-git-send-email-emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 > 2011-02-16 Edjunior Machado > > gdb/ > * gdb.dwarf2/dw2-ranges.S: Add .opd section with function > descriptors for ppc64 compatibility. > * gdb.dwarf2/dw2-ranges2.S: Likewise. > * gdb.dwarf2/dw2-ranges3.S: Likewise. No objection from my end, but just some thoughts on this testcase, aimed mostly at Jan: - Do we really need to start the testcase at all. The comment explains why we do this, but does this testcase in particular bring something extra? - Can we maybe tweak the testcase so that the main function is written in C, rather than ASM. Then have the C function call the old main, and the testcase run until the beginning on main. Would things work with powerpc64 as well, if we did that? I'm just a little concerned about polutting the essence of the assembly file with target-specific stuff, so if we can avoid it... -- Joel