From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-36906-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 7452 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2004 01:44:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 7426 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2004 01:44:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 Nov 2004 01:44:11 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAD1i5Vg030789
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:44:06 -0500
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 iAD1i5r19884;
	Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:44:05 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F31129D8C;
	Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:42:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <41956692.3010500@gnu.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:44:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [commit/value] Merge VALUE_REGNO and VALUE_FRAME_REGNUM
References: <20041113010028.GM15714@tausq.org>
In-Reply-To: <20041113010028.GM15714@tausq.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2

Randolph Chung wrote:
>>The're doing the same thing.  This reduces them down to a single macro, 
>>committed.
> 
> 
>>I'll be following up with a similar patch for lval_register and 
>>lval_reg_frame_relative.
> 
> 
> 
> umm... looks like the patch you committed also changed VALUE_TYPE, etc
> without modifying the targets.  This breaks a lot of targets. Can you
> please fix them? :)

That's an earlier, and far larger patch.  I'm checking each as I go with 
both a native (PPC) and all the cross builds, but that still always 
misses something.

I'll go back through it, however, if something is causing you grief, I'd 
just commit the obvious fix.

Andrew