From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30230 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2003 21:40:05 -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 30222 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 21:40:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 21:40:04 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E602B8F; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:40:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FAC112F.30601@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:40:00 -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: "J. Johnston" Cc: Andrew Cagney , Daniel Jacobowitz , Kevin Buettner , Marcel Moolenaar , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add child_to_xfer_partial; Was: ia64 portion of libunwind patch References: <3F986E31.8050201@redhat.com> <1031024175718.ZM3475@localhost.localdomain> <3F996D88.9060505@redhat.com> <1031024185625.ZM9827@localhost.localdomain> <3F9F0180.2010702@redhat.com> <20031029012833.GA11070@nevyn.them.org> <3FA043B2.6090401@redhat.com> <3FA7F97B.4090909@redhat.com> <3FAACBE3.3060104@redhat.com> <3FAACF6D.8080109@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 > I like it because it means I only have to provide the particular functionality instead of overriding the whole function which could be dangerous if other changes were made to the default_xfer_partial routine. I'ts in. Any luck with a testcase for the unwind table? Something to add to gdb.arch. If none of us can figure out a way to tickle this code then it may not even be needed. Kevin wrote .. > I assume it's #if 0'd because TARGET_OBJECT_UNWIND_TABLE > isn't defined yet? Yep. The intent is to sketch out the mechanism's basic structure. Jeff will enable the code if/when it is needed. Andrew