From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28355 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2004 00:40:12 -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 28346 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2004 00:40:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2004 00:40:11 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3U0e9KI017427 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:40:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3U0e9v06249; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:40:09 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78C22B9D; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4091A06A.4030803@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:40:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, cagney Subject: Re: [RFA] mips 32/64 register/stack fix References: <408813A9.6000402@redhat.com> <4088242A.4070601@gnu.org> <40883C90.7030509@redhat.com> <40884155.2090205@gnu.org> <40884BEF.5070909@redhat.com> <409025F2.9080704@gnu.org> <20040429031240.GA12518@nevyn.them.org> <409105C7.1020502@gnu.org> <40914235.2040702@redhat.com> <40915C55.2050807@gnu.org> <4091704E.2050809@redhat.com> <4091754E.4010001@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <4091754E.4010001@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00700.txt.bz2 >> Andrew Cagney wrote: >> >>> See daniel's follow up: >> >> >> >> OK, well, FYI, I ran the testsuite with your revised patch, and it >> introduced a bunch of new fails in the whole callfuncs family, along >> with some other completely unexpected places (ptype???). > > > Remember, my patch was an un-tested guess. You'll want to debug it a little, but the theory is sound. I just tried a variation of it, and it worked for me (mips-elf and mips64-elf) so as I said the theory is sound. I'm not sure what is happening, but it sounds like more problems at your end -- the EABI code is seriously bitrotten :-/ Andrew