From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: DJBARROW@de.ibm.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, ARENZ@de.ibm.com Subject: [patch] multi-arch CANNOT_^&*^*&_REGISTER(); Was: New gdb 31 & 64 bit patches for S/390 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:46:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B2A9E39.7040702@cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00311.html Hello, This multi-arches CANNOT_FETCH_REGISTER() and CANNOT_STORE_REGISTER(). It should be equivalent to the original s390 gdbarch.sh patch. I should note that the original s390 patch included a change that added the concept of a default expression/values. I've left that idea for a rain day. Andrew >From ac131313@cygnus.com Fri Jun 15 16:48:00 2001 From: Andrew Cagney To: Michael Snyder Cc: "Peter.Schauer" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] if (INNER_THAN (read_sp(), step_sp - 16)) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:48:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B2A9EC8.7020106@cygnus.com> References: <3B2A97C7.52A839FD@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00312.html Content-length: 387 > But I have no idea how to detect the situation that you are > trying to test for. So I'd like to toss it back to you. > Can you find a better way to test for this? Maybe with > (ugh) another state variable? > > And if not, can you put those two lines into an ifdef, > so they won't affect targets for which they're not intended? Well it can't be a (ugh) #ifdef :-) Andrew