From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98388 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2019 21:53:53 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 98374 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jul 2019 21:53:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:53:52 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA9833082D6C; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f29-4.lan (ovpn-117-224.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.224]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C31B560BEC; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:53:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stepping bug associated with non-contiguous blocks Message-ID: <20190715145350.6ad694e0@f29-4.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190715141116.6d240805@f29-4.lan> References: <20190714000108.15420-1-kevinb@redhat.com> <87ef2r9vd5.fsf@tromey.com> <20190715141116.6d240805@f29-4.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:11:16 -0700 Kevin Buettner wrote: > Do we still care about the VAX target? After spending a few minutes looking at things, I now have an opinion... VAX is, historically, a very important target. For a long time (and perhaps even now), it was considered to be the canonical example of a CISC architecture. Support still exists in GCC, though it's not clear to me if it actually works. I saw recent patches (from April, 2019) from someone who is trying to get VAX support in GCC to work again. Given that GCC still has code which provides VAX architecture support, I think that GDB should do likewise. I think that we should attempt to not break it (anymore than it's already broken?), but I also don't think we should attempt to test it beyond making sure that it still builds. Kevin