From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129466 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2017 12:28:04 -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 129363 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jun 2017 12:27:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KHOP_DYNAMIC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:27:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v5ECJBPf036245 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:28:01 -0400 Received: from e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2b335m69k4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:28:01 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:27:58 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.140) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:27:56 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v5ECRu4633882168; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:27:56 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF11DA4051; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:25:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B348A404D; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:25:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from oc1027705133.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.212.151]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:25:49 +0100 (BST) From: Andreas Arnez To: Pedro Alves Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix register selection in var-access.exp References: <0dc97ea8ffe3b55b2a114ba1102f23c0@polymtl.ca> <610f1674-ef5d-4218-fdba-fbad5c762971@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <610f1674-ef5d-4218-fdba-fbad5c762971@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:24:27 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17061412-0040-0000-0000-000003A9FF61 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17061412-0041-0000-0000-000025A31524 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-06-14_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706140210 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 13 2017, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 06/13/2017 09:33 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > >> However could you (or somebody else) explain this to me? The doc of >> is_amd64_regs_target says: >> >> 2465 # Return 1 if target has x86_64 registers - either amd64 or x32. >> 2466 # x32 target identifies as x86_64-*-linux*, therefore it cannot be >> determined >> 2467 # just from the target string. >> >> If x32 identifies as x86_64-something and that procedure should return >> true when testing with x32 and x86_64/amd64, why can't we test the >> target string for x86_64-*? > > Some vendors build --target i686-* toolchains, and then > use -m64 to target the 64-bit multilib. Hm, I wasn't aware of that. In addition, even on an x86_64-* target, -m32 could be in effect. IMHO the comment is indeed misleading, but I'd rather leave it to someone who actually knows all the various x86/amd64 targets and ABIs to fix it. As this discussion is unrelated to the fix itself and the fix was approved already, I pushed it now. Thanks, Andreas