From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4855 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2002 23:01:46 -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 4848 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 23:01:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 23:01:45 -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 PAA07610; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D6AB358.F7E7D1FD@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:14:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Generic solution for store_struct_address References: <3D644ACA.3626BF8F@redhat.com> <1020826223151.ZM32716@localhost.localdomain> <3D6AB26F.10003@ges.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00874.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 7:22pm, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > > > >> Kevin, would you by any chance be in a position to test it on ia64 > >> and/or > >> rs6000? > > > > > > Sure, I'll give it a spin... > > Just FYI, given the thread: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00674.html > I'm assuming that this patch is dropped. Why? I didn't drop it. You commented that using generic dummy frames was a better solution, but it remains true that some targets do not use generic dummy frames, and I'm not sure that all targets can use them.