From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14227 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 18:26:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14219 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 18:26:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 18:26:19 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18384; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CC6F5F7.D7862376@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:26:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix sparc64 pop/push frame reg saving References: <20020420.013839.70807514.davem@redhat.com> <3CC5B6ED.7BFD1E5D@redhat.com> <20020423.214548.14408285.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00960.txt.bz2 "David S. Miller" wrote: > > From: Michael Snyder > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:33:01 -0700 > > David, I see that this is based on your renumbering of the > sparc64 registers (submitted separately). I don't think > that renumbering is allowable. Even if we disregarded > embedded sparc64 targets, wouldn't this break Solaris? > > Solaris would not break, no. > > It is a shame that embedded will prevent a renumbering, since > the numbers were choosen a little bit poorly, but what can > we do :( That's just one of the crosses we bear (bare?) Once a numbering is released, it is set in stone. It's often inconvenient, and I believe someone is working on a solution.