From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21571 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2012 19:06:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 21432 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2012 19:06:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f171.google.com) (209.85.212.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:05:59 +0000 Received: by wibhj13 with SMTP id hj13so3619490wib.12 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:05:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.132.222 with SMTP id o72mr8952369wei.95.1334171157746; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:05:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rsandifo.gotadsl.co.uk. [82.133.89.107]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm46811280wix.0.2012.04.11.12.05.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:05:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" ,, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: Subject: Re: [RFA] MIPS/GDB: Fix the handling of MIPS16 thunks References: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Maciej W. Rozycki's message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:20:19 +0100") Message-ID: <8762d6ccmk.fsf@talisman.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 "Maciej W. Rozycki" writes: > [Richard, I've cc-ed you as the MIPS port maintainer of GCC and binutils, > the producers of MIPS16 and some other thunks covered here, in case you > had anything to add, and just so that you know this issue is being > addressed now.] Sounds like great work, thanks. Hope it goes in. I don't really have anything constructive to say, but just out of curiosity: we "fixed" call/return stubs to have unwind information for GCC 4.7. Do you happen to know whether the test passes with that change? Richard