From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4028 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2013 17:22:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 4011 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2013 17:22:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:22:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r08HMSD4000331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:22:28 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r08HMOB1008481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:22:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:22:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Mike Frysinger Cc: "H.J. Lu" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: x86: fix x32 builds with inline asm Message-ID: <20130108172223.GA2601@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1357657280-24150-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <201301081052.36180.vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201301081052.36180.vapier@gentoo.org> 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:52:34 +0100, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 08 January 2013 10:36:11 H.J. Lu wrote: > > I think we should keep > > > > #else > > # error "!__i386__ && !__x86_64__" > > #endif > > that #else case is currently impossible to hit because the whole func is > protected by: > #if defined __i386__ || defined __x86_64__ > > i'm guessing the #else was there only to make sure that some asm test was > performed, but since there is no conditional asm, that's no longer an issue I agree and I do not mind either way. Jan