From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-46585-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9259 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2006 13:50:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 9179 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2006 13:50:17 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from out001.atlarge.net (HELO out001.atlarge.net) (129.41.63.69)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:50:07 +0000
Received: from hpmailfe-01.atlarge.net ([10.100.60.156]) by out001.atlarge.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 	 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:48:21 -0600
Received: from [172.19.32.122] ([213.250.36.225]) by hpmailfe-01.atlarge.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 	 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:48:21 -0600
Message-ID: <457EB381.2090207@telargo.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:50:00 -0000
From: Tom Marn <tom.marn@telargo.com>
Reply-To:  tom.marn@telargo.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061115)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
CC:  gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: psim stfiwx instruction patch
References: <457EA110.7030302@oarcorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <457EA110.7030302@oarcorp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2

Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is in reference to the patch in:
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00243.html
> 
> and your comments here:
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00315.html
> 
> I don't have a whole lot to offer except that gcc now generates
> this instruction and the simulator needs it.  The RTEMS test code
> which made gcc generate this instruction now run correctly.  Those
> tests are not specifically of this instruction by itself but of an
> entire program where gcc generated it.
> 
> So things are better with this patch than without.  Without,
> you get an exception and die.  With it, you run.
> 
> If the comments stay, is the patch OK?

 No, on comment out location GDB code just won't compile.
 But at new (for me ;) ) more appropriate location compiles without problems.

 See my comment: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00370.html 

Tom