From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4348 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2003 04:56:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4306 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2003 04:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ngate.noida.hcltech.com) (202.54.110.230) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 14 Jan 2003 04:56:22 -0000 Received: from exch-01.noida.hcltech.com (exch-01 [204.160.254.29]) by ngate.noida.hcltech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24874; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:21:52 +0530 Received: by exch-01.noida.hcltech.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:20:36 +0530 Message-ID: From: "D.Venkatasubramanian, Noida" To: "J. Johnston" , Kazu Hirata , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, newlib@sources.redhat.com Cc: "D.Venkatasubramanian, Noida" Subject: RE: PATCH : H8300 Simulator File I/O Implementation Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 04:56:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 Hi All, Just as a reminder, are the changes done to the H8300 simulator OK, is there something else that needs to be done. There hasn't been any activity after the final set of changes. If OK, could someone apply the patches to newlib and the simulator. Regards, Venky > -----Original Message----- > From: D.Venkatasubramanian, Noida > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:33 AM > To: Kazu Hirata; gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; > newlib@sources.redhat.com > Subject: RE: PATCH : H8300 Simulator File I/O Implementation > > > Hi Kazu, > > > > Hi Venky, > > > > > ;int open(const char *pathname, int flags); > > > ;Integer arguments have to be zero extended. > > > ;The second argument is taken from the stack, > > > ;hence it is not zero extended here. > > > > By the second argument, do you mean flags? If so, it is in > regster r1 > > or er1 in all variants of H8, I think. > > I meant the flags, but as this function uses variable > arguments, I found the > > flags on the starting position on the stack and R2. As the calling > convention > for variable arguments seems to be different, I get the > parameter from the > stack. If there is some improvement that can be done, I would > be willing to > do the same heartily. :-) > > > > > Kazu Hirata > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Venky >