From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17401 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2012 19:10:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 17391 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2012 19:10:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:10:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q21JAU35016797 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:10:33 -0500 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-100.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.100]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q21IOR9M029343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:24:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:10:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] sh-tdep.c: Don't fetch FPSCR register if it doesn't exist Message-ID: <20120301112426.0db5c4d8@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120301155645.GA2853@adacore.com> References: <20120229173408.78699013@mesquite.lan> <20120301013318.GJ3118@adacore.com> <20120229220932.17ad0d5f@mesquite.lan> <20120301155645.GA2853@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 07:56:45 -0800 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > What do you think? > > > > Here's an updated patch: > > > > * sh-tdep.c (sh_frame_cache): Don't fetch the FPSCR register > > unless it exists for this architecture. > > FWIW, I don't know if it is *the* canonical approach (or if there is > any), but it seems like a very reasonable one. Thanks for looking it over. I'll go with this approach then, unless there are objections. Kevin