From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id eq7YE3TJimetvxIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:19:48 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 40B131E100; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:19:48 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A3E1E05C for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:19:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FA7383F42A for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:19:47 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 11FA7383F42A Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2F7383F41C; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:17:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7B2F7383F41C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gentoo.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gentoo.org ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 7B2F7383F41C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1737148660; cv=none; b=QgyWUC2TR0P6td5WnMZ11mtfNlGV+h/yETTOQ7sqMoarYCVwaxeHYHriuzXcDEoUewT/XUlzZSPwZagbIjSx3Qu7iAswFjmNQQ+KHt5Bfq3DPx3Q4RhRwIBBx76zoR4Ik21QMtR+f5zmKC5RNB2e0Nq8NU+HH5zevdKYSNqaDp8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1737148660; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xsfGe3JR28JMu3/vv7cev14b8BWg+H11+C0UwcTE6fg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=p8uqO0ZhGGxbdsVieQPp/9V33Y7BuOCNlVJrkrWGqGpC54wboJO6AeGSYnkhVC4MGeHZXMx/6UCVnvwoO5JuiWTb9yPxjWZhFTuantQtY6PKsGAOT+S+EY56kQkMwesOb/PlbjgRIE01lDhOrN39aYRjocisz6/oMl6nGHMaSd0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7B2F7383F41C From: Sam James To: Ivan Kokshaysky Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] alpha, ld: remove -taso option In-Reply-To: (Ivan Kokshaysky's message of "Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:00:48 +0100") Organization: Gentoo References: <87tt9xjy4f.fsf@gentoo.org> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.7; emacs 31.0.50 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:17:34 +0000 Message-ID: <87jzati1ht.fsf@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Ivan Kokshaysky writes: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 02:47:28PM +0000, Sam James wrote: >> Ivan Kokshaysky writes: > ... >> > diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp >> > index 58fedb1d36b..54efe51fbaa 100644 >> > --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp >> > +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp >> > @@ -26,12 +26,6 @@ set endian "auto" >> > >> > set formats {binary ihex srec tekhex verilog} >> > >> > -if {[istarget "alpha*-*-*"]} { >> > - # SREC etc cannot handle 64-bit addresses. Force the test >> > - # program into the low 31 bits of the address space. >> > - lappend options "ldflags=-Wl,-taso" >> > -} >> >> Is this part right? SREC is a debugging format, so if we're going to do >> this, we'd need to drop the SREC format, or accept it's going to be >> untested, I think? > > Yes, this test will be skipped just like on any other 64-bit architecture. > But if we keep it, it would fail with linux kernels starting from v6.14. Yes, for some reason, I'd got it in my head that it was especially an alpha-specific format, but it ain't. Thanks.