From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12572-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 13796 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2002 00:09:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 13612 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 00:09:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.114.26.18)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 00:09:13 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 24EA23E6A; Wed,  6 Feb 2002 19:09:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C61C5A8.1040100@cygnus.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:09:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: Recognize bottom of stack on Linux
References: <200202040206.VAA21952@zenia.red-bean.com>	<20020203222111.A17644@nevyn.them.org>	<npwuxrr978.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>	<20020205165716.A10437@nevyn.them.org> <npu1sujttj.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00187.txt.bz2

> I'm curious as to why we can't just set this universally, or at least a
>> little more globally.  Most things that have a main () use it as a
>> normal main ().  I'd propose that we set it as the default frame chain,
>> and provide/document an option to ignore inside_main_func.
> 
> 
> Well, gdbarch is never supposed to change the default behavior of
> macros; this helps us convert pre-gdbarch targets incrementally.
> Simply turning on gdbarch for one's target ideally wouldn't change its
> behavior at all.


Yes, definitly.  Rule of least suprise, learnt from multi-arch experience.

However, that doesn't stop an independant change that does alter the 
default behavour.  cf. my proposed patch to change the default value of 
TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_FORMAT to ieee_double from floatformat_unknown.

enjoy,
Andrew