From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18899 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2003 07:52:46 -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 18842 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 07:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kerberos.suse.cz) (195.47.106.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 07:52:46 -0000 Received: from chimera.suse.cz (chimera.suse.cz [10.20.0.2]) by kerberos.suse.cz (SuSE SMTP server) with ESMTP id AB16D59D4B1; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:52:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from suse.cz (naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16]) by chimera.suse.cz (8.11.0/8.11.0/SuSE Linux 8.11.0-0.4) with ESMTP id h2H7qi415886; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:52:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: chimera.suse.cz: Host naga.suse.cz [10.20.1.16] claimed to be suse.cz Message-ID: <3E757ECC.1090305@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:52:00 -0000 From: Michal Ludvig Organization: SuSE CR User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: cs, cz, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [offbyone RFC] Merge i386newframe References: <3E6FAF64.7070304@suse.cz> <3E71F890.7090304@suse.cz> <200303161248.h2GCmHwN004525@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200303161248.h2GCmHwN004525@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00356.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:43:12 +0100 > From: Michal Ludvig > > Hi all, > I've reworked the merge a little to avoid the need to reorder > frame.c:get_prev_frame() and fixed the 'next' and 'return' bugs that > were in the prevoius one. Now it passes the testsuite even better than > the i386newframe code did :-) > I'm sorry I'm short of time to write more now. > > Andrew and Mark, please look around the patch and tell me your opinions. > > Michal, > > I appreciate your efforts here, but your patch introduces > Linux-specific code into i386-tdep.c. I'm sorry, but we can't have > that. Hmm, yes. Might be, because I don't use anything else but linux and don't have an idea what's different on non-linux targets. Is it only the i386_sigtramp_cache() that is different? Would it help if I moved sigtramp unwinders (or maybe only i386_sigtramp_cache()) into i386-linux-tdep.c? Anyway could you or Andrew tell me if I did at least the linux bits right? I'd like to know if I could build x86-64 support in the same way or even better on top of i386? > I'll try to keep my i386newframe branch synced with HEAD. I'm > afraid I don't have the time now to keep track of the offbyone branch > right now, but as Andrew merges things from there, I'll pick them up > in i386newframe. I'll certainly take a look at your patch, and > incorporate the good bits. The problem is that Andrew told me o use offbyone branch but I'd like to be in sync with you on i386newframe as well... But these two branches aren't compatible anymore. Michal Ludvig -- * SuSE CR, s.r.o * mludvig@suse.cz * (+420) 296.545.373 * http://www.suse.cz