From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-95201-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25387 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2012 10:10:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 25363 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2012 10:10:03 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:09:58 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q9FA9t8S006555;	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:09:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id q9FA9r3O027266;	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:09:53 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:10:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201210151009.q9FA9r3O027266@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: hjl.tools@gmail.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to:	<CAMe9rOoxdjss8YfB1KLFyN6unWHP2RzZVszmVsiOCjrAiDqrUw@mail.gmail.com>	(hjl.tools@gmail.com)
Subject: Re: PING: PATCH: PR backtrace/14646: [x32] backtrace doesn't work
References: <20121003154712.GH3028@adacore.com>	<CAMe9rOreX6NAf08vD8=k4LBGevvTFUd-tqwwWmbsA3iRxxsE2A@mail.gmail.com>	<201210040657.q946vJlc006566@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<CAMe9rOounZ9e14QeMLvXR64gG5rJxQ9nNxt64YoLW54bx5VtHw@mail.gmail.com>	<201210081948.q98Jm3D7020175@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<CAMe9rOpU6+oRN=a5xxK4pZhnyET2v7mu0UzCXo=HrAdQnVqgig@mail.gmail.com>	<201210082022.q98KM82d014759@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<CAMe9rOr3cWT94swdnQ0CgtDosA=Bgk7RAV6Uus+xWa65ya-hqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<201210082047.q98KlQ6V031554@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<20121008210142.GA14305@gmail.com>	<20121009153217.GA6936@gmail.com>	<201210091539.q99Fdj3D027359@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<201210091547.q99FlrrT005368@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<CAMe9rOpEqZNjvMR7cm6mBWd1mu_BFjs88mZ3NX15_Ch7bwcHzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe9rOoxdjss8YfB1KLFyN6unWHP2RzZVszmVsiOCjrAiDqrUw@mail.gmail.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: 2012-10/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 09:38:32 -0700
> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
> 
> The current GDB doesn't work on x32.  This patch:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-09/msg00714.html
> 
> isn't perfect where $pc/$sp is displayed as 64-bit integer.  But
> otherwise, GDB works fine.

Finally found some time to dig a little bit deeper.  The x32 ABI isn't
the only 32-bit ABI with 64-bit registers.  The mips n32 ABI has
exactly the same issue.  The relevant code there carries the following
comment:

  /* Use pointer types for registers if we can.  For n32 we can not,
     since we do not have a 64-bit pointer type.  */

So I'd say that you should probably commit the diff in:

   <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-09/msg00714.html>

on the grounds that other 32-bit on 64-bit ABIs also punt on the issue.

But it would be good to try to come up with a way to print 64-bit
registers as pointers for this class of ABIs.  But that should almost
certainly done by fixing target-independent parts of GDB and not by
adding more complexity to the target descriptions like your last
couple of diffs did.