From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26956 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2013 21:48:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26934 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2013 21:48:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:48:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBGLlYTH010835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:47:34 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-93.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.93]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBGLlXoo022342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:47:33 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: "Pierre Muller" Cc: Subject: Re: [RFC] pascal: also handle Free Pascal longjump function. References: <37888.8297280811$1386971648@news.gmane.org> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <37888.8297280811$1386971648@news.gmane.org> (Pierre Muller's message of "Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:52:52 +0100") Message-ID: <87mwk0pix6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00604.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pierre" == Pierre Muller writes: Pierre> - Where is this internal long jump breakpoint really used in the code? Search infrun.c for BPSTAT_WHAT_SET_LONGJMP_RESUME. Pierre> - Is this kind of patch likely to be accepted? Sure. Pierre> I would perfectly understand that it would be not acceptable as is, Pierre> but maybe some language specific version of the Pierre> longjmp name would be useful, no? I don't think it makes sense to be language-dependent here, because then this makes mixed-language debugging harder. I do wonder whether gdb will really be able to understand this function. Does it make jmp_bufs compatible with the arch support already in gdb? What about PC mangling? What defines fpc_longjmp and why is it not just a simple wrapper for the C library longjmp? Tom