From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25332 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2012 20:33:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 25315 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2012 20:33:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:33:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2EKXCX8027691 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:33:12 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2EKXAK0031026; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:33:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4F610086.4070006@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:33:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Thomas Schwinge , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [SH] gdb.dwarf2 tests: use .byte4 instead of .long References: <87d38gl7r2.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120314193509.GA30809@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F60FCC3.1010304@redhat.com> <20120314202554.GA2026@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120314202554.GA2026@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 On 03/14/2012 08:25 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:17:07 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Is this due to the test having been originally written by adjusting gcc output? > > No, amd64 gcc just produces .long and .value. /me confused :-) >> Maybe gcc could be changed to emit .byte4 instead? > > I was looking at it once already but there are some concerns with > compatibility with various non-GNU assemblers I was unaware of at all. > As the assembler directives are chosen according to the target arch GCC can > always adjust it accordingly. Multi-arch GDB testfiles cannot. > > It is true this .4byte directive probably breaks compatibility with some > non-GNU assemblers but I believe easy cross-arch compatibility is of a more > concern to GDB than such non-GNU assemblers compatibility. Or is it? IMO, yes. There's always putting the .byte4/.something behind preprocessor macros if somebody cares. -- Pedro Alves