From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20159 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2003 23:56:16 -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 20141 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2003 23:56:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 2003 23:56:15 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE062B89; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:54:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3F9DB049.10603@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc,rfa:ppc64] Add osabi wildcard support References: <3F986371.9060708@redhat.com> <1031028215919.ZM3764@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00826.txt.bz2 > preferences? > > > At the moment, I prefer the explicit registration of architecture > variants. I'd prefer to wait on adding the wildcard mechanism until a > more compelling need for it is demonstrated. Per the discussion between myself and daniel, the current proposal is to add: > > gdbarch_register_osabi (bfd_arch_powerpc, bfd_mach_ppc, ... > > gdbarch_register_osabi (bfd_arch_powerpc, bfd_mach_ppc64, ... > > plus, I believe, either > + gdbarch_register_osabi (bfd_arch_rs6000, bfd_mach_rs6k); to the linux file. Is that pre-approved? Andrew