From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28828 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2003 21:28:27 -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 28820 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2003 21:28:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 21:28:25 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAKLSOH10215 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:28:24 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAKLSMa31654; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:28:22 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAKLSLH27456; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:28:21 -0800 Message-ID: <3FBD31F5.6080201@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:28:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, cagney Subject: Re: [RFA] mips-o64-extract-return-value References: <3FBC13EC.1040202@redhat.com> <3FBC1782.3000908@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <3FBC1782.3000908@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00430.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> This change fixes 100s of FAILs for mips64-elf, 'cause gdb can't >> find the function's return value. It follows some work that you >> were apparently doing w.r.t. the mips internal register representation. >> >> I suspect that the same thing needs to be done for mips_eabi_extract..., >> but I haven't tested that. What do you think? > > > Ok. > >> I'll probably try doing something similar for store_return_value too. > > > Rather than doing the same thing for store_return_value, take a look at > the PPC's "ppc_sysv_abi_return_value". Grep grep... ah, you mean ppc_sysv_abi_STORE_return_value. Shall I fix your change log entries for you? ;-)