From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27038 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 14:30:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 27019 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 14:30:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-qa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.216.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:30:14 +0000 Received: by qam2 with SMTP id 2so474275qam.0 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:30:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.168.142 with SMTP id u14mr21151366qay.42.1334673013363; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.136.69 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:30:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201204171143.q3HBh9LV021759@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> References: <20120410202953.GA23862@intel.com> <201204171143.q3HBh9LV021759@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PATCH: Also check for `movl %esp, %ebp' for x32 From: "H.J. Lu" To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00478.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Mark Kettenis wr= ote: >> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:29:53 -0700 >> From: "H.J. Lu" >> >> Hi, >> >> X32 may use `movl %esp, %ebp' in prologue. =A0This patch checks it for >> x32. =A0Tested on Linux/x86-64. =A0OK for trunk? > > Sorry, but I'm not sure it is a good idea to mix ABIs in the code like > that. =A0Up until now, I've made a conscious attempt to keep the i386 > and amd64 ABIs seperated out as much as possible. =A0Can you post a > complete diff of the -tdep.c related changes to support x32 in GDB, > such that I can judge where this is heading? Here is the complete x32 GDB patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00476.html Thanks. --=20 H.J.