From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: DJBARROW@de.ibm.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, s390-patches@gnu.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, ARENZ@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: New gdb 31 & 64 bit patches for S/390 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:53:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B2A3D64.7080102@cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00296.html Hello, I intend checking in the attatched (diff) patch. Before doing it though, is the s390 really a 31 bit architecture? For reference I've also included the original diff and ChangeLog. Andrew >From ac131313@cygnus.com Fri Jun 15 09:56:00 2001 From: Andrew Cagney To: DJBARROW@de.ibm.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, s390-patches@gnu.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, ARENZ@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: New gdb 31 & 64 bit patches for S/390 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:56:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B2A3E33.3000906@cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00297.html Content-length: 540 > The only thing I'm aware of which isn't working properly > is gdb /boot/vmlinux /proc/kcore > when compiled for multiarch > > This is because the bfd stuff returns > bfd_arch_unknown > > & set_gdbarch_from_file complains because gdbarch_update_p can't fix up > this, > this however is quite normal for the /proc/kcore file even when compiled > without multi-arch, > the code works fine when compiled without multi-arch. I believe this was a bug in the logic that selected the current architecture and was recently fixed. Andrew