From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7844 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2004 07:45:11 -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 7815 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2004 07:45:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2004 07:45:08 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-209-166.inter.net.il [80.230.209.166]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BNR77459; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:44:24 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:45:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Brian Ford Message-Id: <8011-Fri02Apr2004094123+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: jimb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Brian Ford on Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:54:46 -0600 (CST)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386_stab_reg_to_regnum (4 <-> 5, ebp <-> esp) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:54:46 -0600 (CST) > From: Brian Ford > > > > Sorry --- is there an existing toolchain using Dwarf 2 on Windows? If > > not, then what existing tools, already in use by others, are you being > > forward and backward compatible with? > > > This isn't really relevant Why not? > but DJGPP does. That's true: DJGPP does support DWARF2 debug info in COFF object file format. > It appears to me that they use the dbx_register_map for DWARF2. So, > I don't understand why they don't have the problem my patch was > trying to address. I marked this thread for checking, but never had time to do it. If you can send me a sample program and a description of what I should do to see whether DJGPP has the same problem, I will gladly try that and report the results. Please also tell what versions of GCC and GDB should I try. > The forward part of my compatability argument is that all known working > (I still don't understand how DJGPP is working without my patch) i386 targets > with DWARF2 support use the svr4_register_numbering scheme. So, I was > trying to go with that precident instead of the one you observed. Some time ago I did find a problem in register numbering, and IIRC it was fixed, although I don't recall the details and don't see anything in the logs. Perhaps the fix was in GCC rather than GDB. And I don't remember whether I looked at EBP and ESP back then.