From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FA7C3857007 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:50:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3FA7C3857007 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eliz@gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:32923) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jqzbU-0008D8-NF; Thu, 02 Jul 2020 09:50:16 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1799 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jqzbT-0003vj-DC; Thu, 02 Jul 2020 09:50:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 16:50:13 +0300 Message-Id: <83v9j6vxey.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com, tromey@adacore.com In-Reply-To: <83pn9fxofc.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 18:09:11 +0300) Subject: Re: Building today's snapshot of GDB with MinGW References: <83a70l20dn.fsf@gnu.org> <83wo3ozlvn.fsf@gnu.org> <56f26808-dfb0-6703-6f1f-9818c35946dd@polymtl.ca> <83pn9fxofc.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 13:50:18 -0000 > Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 18:09:11 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com, tromey@adacore.com > > > We would not expect GDB to complain for Windows on i386:x86-64. > > > > The first thing I would do is make sure that the function _initialize_amd64_windows_tdep > > gets executed at startup in your GDB. This is the function that registers a handler for > > the tuple (i386:x86-64, Windows). > > Thanks, I will take a look there and report what I see. I started looking at the code, but then I had a eureka moment. You mentioned _initialize_amd64_windows_tdep, so I presume you assumed my build is a 64-bit one? It isn't: it's a 3--bit build, and thus _initialize_amd64_windows_tdep is not even compiled into the binary. Given that my build is a 32-bit one, it sounds expected to see warnings I cited, as they all complain about 64-bit architectures, right? Incidentally, I wonder why the gdbarch selftest is trying architectures that are not supported and not even compiled in. What is the purpose of doing that? Thanks.