From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9563 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2011 16:47:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 9553 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2011 16:47:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:47:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p14GlUmI013244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:47:30 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p14GlT60011490; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:47:29 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p14GlSST008387; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:47:29 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A9CA33784E1; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:47:28 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Implement support for IBM XL C for OpenCL vector ABI References: <201102021748.p12Hm18H010975@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201102021748.p12Hm18H010975@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (Ulrich Weigand's message of "Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:48:00 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Ulrich" == Ulrich Weigand writes: Ulrich> This extra flag is defined by GDB itself, and has a value outside Ulrich> the defined range of DW_AT_calling_convention attribute values, Ulrich> so there should be no potential conflict. Ulrich> Does this look reasonable? If anyone sees a better way to implement Ulrich> this, I'd appreciate any suggestions ... I think it would be slightly more future-proof to choose a value in the lo_user-hi_user range and put the new name, along with a detailed comment, into include/dwarf2.h. That way, if somebody finds a conflicting use, presumably they will be editing the same place, see the comment, and change the value to something that does not conflict. Tom