From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [testuite patch] Fix cross-arch .S testsuite files compatibility
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8762e6ky5l.fsf@schwinge.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120315090602.GA7079@host2.jankratochvil.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1426 bytes --]
Hi!
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:06:02 +0100, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:11 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > In my patch I had explicitly taken care to replace .long with .4byte only
> > in .debug_* sections (and only in files that are not x86-specific, as it
> > doesn't matter for those). You're now proposing such changes, too:
>
> I checked specifically the "v" case where .debug_info already expects it takes
> _4_ bytes:
> .byte 0x4 /* DW_AT_byte_size */
>
> It is true I did not check other cases but:
>
>
> > I just wanted to check whether we can be sure that .4byte always conveys
> > the same meaning as .long did in such cases?
>
> as these testfiles were created on x86* .long is compiled there as .4byte.
> This means that any such occurence of .long can be replaced by .4byte.
>
>
> > Can there be other semantic differences between the two?
>
> It is a good question and I am not aware of any such differences.
Hmm, I just had a quick look, and found that, for example, tc-arm.c has
this:
#ifdef OBJ_ELF
{ "word", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 },
{ "long", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 },
... and obj-elf.c:
{"4byte", cons, 4},
Compared to cons, s_arm_elf_cons does quite a lot of things, for example
handle mapping symbols (which cons doesn't do, I think?).
Grüße,
Thomas
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-15 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-14 20:27 Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-15 8:57 ` Thomas Schwinge
2012-03-15 9:06 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-15 9:32 ` Thomas Schwinge [this message]
2012-03-16 8:52 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-21 11:37 ` Thomas Schwinge
2012-03-19 14:04 ` Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8762e6ky5l.fsf@schwinge.name \
--to=thomas@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox