From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27120 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 23:01:50 -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 27112 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 23:01:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 23:01:49 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TN1UJt000419; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:01:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TN1Uq8000462; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:01:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7TN1QE5000459; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:01:26 +0200 (CEST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Michal Ludvig , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64 References: <3CC42DA0.9070906@suse.cz> <3D6BF1D5.70409@ges.redhat.com> <3D6E231D.8060906@suse.cz> <20020829142120.GA5176@nevyn.them.org> <3D6E3666.7070309@suse.cz> <20020829150833.GA29973@nevyn.them.org> <3D6E40EE.5000904@ges.redhat.com> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney's message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:42:38 -0400" Message-ID: <868z2pp8vt.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg01019.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > MarkK, I believe, is planning on merging much of the i386 and x86-64 > stuff so that a single GDB would support both -- that would remove the > issue. Isn't going to happen before branching. My problem is that I don't have the opportunity to test an x86-64 target. I might have a go at integrating bits, but Michal will probably have to test those changes for me. > Is there any immediate technical problem stopping x86-64 linking in > i386-tdep.c? (Yes scary, multi-arch). Well, the very least that should be done is merging x86_64_gdbarch_init with i386_gdbarch_init. Mark