From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20199 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2012 20:26:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 20185 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2012 20:26:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 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; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:26:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2EKPxGQ025326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:25:59 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2EKPsWv003065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:25:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:26:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Thomas Schwinge , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [SH] gdb.dwarf2 tests: use .byte4 instead of .long Message-ID: <20120314202554.GA2026@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87d38gl7r2.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120314193509.GA30809@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F60FCC3.1010304@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F60FCC3.1010304@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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/msg00509.txt.bz2 On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:17:07 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > Is this due to the test having been originally written by adjusting gcc output? No, amd64 gcc just produces .long and .value. > Maybe gcc could be changed to emit .byte4 instead? I was looking at it once already but there are some concerns with compatibility with various non-GNU assemblers I was unaware of at all. As the assembler directives are chosen according to the target arch GCC can always adjust it accordingly. Multi-arch GDB testfiles cannot. It is true this .4byte directive probably breaks compatibility with some non-GNU assemblers but I believe easy cross-arch compatibility is of a more concern to GDB than such non-GNU assemblers compatibility. Or is it? Thanks, Jan