From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10004 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2002 22:27:04 -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 9997 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2002 22:27:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2002 22:27:03 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE70F3C63; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D49B5B7.1080900@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] mips_push_arguments(): Make O64 ABI test explicit References: <1020731210452.ZM23445@localhost.localdomain> <3D486843.8007D610@redhat.com> <1020731232203.ZM24308@localhost.localdomain> <3D4870EB.BB9C282A@redhat.com> <1020801011054.ZM24816@localhost.localdomain> <3D49AE69.3040708@ges.redhat.com> <1020801221807.ZM30183@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 > Sounds like the comment should be updated to mention a few more ABIs and >> confirm that it is GCC that is wrong. I'll assume this patch is withdrawn. > > > It is for the moment. > > If you read further in the thread, you'll see that I've verified that > it's gcc which is wrong. I did, that is why I suggested ``confirm that it is GCC'' :-) > That being the case, more than just the comment > will need to change. (IMO, of course.) In what way? GDB was trying to implement things according to the ABI (unless someone snuck in a change or the code suffered bit rot). As DanielJ mentioned, GCC should be fixed. > I'll wait a bit for further discussion before submitting a new patch. Andrew