From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5130 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2004 20:49:39 -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 5123 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 20:49:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 20:49:38 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3JKncJW020912 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:49:38 -0400 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3JKnaj25747; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:49:37 -0400 To: Brian Ford Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin References: <200404161650.i3GGoPxI054716@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <200404181838.i3IIccMf006115@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 Brian Ford writes: > I'm seriously considering reverting that change. I believe my original > gut feeling was correct before Jim Blandy convinced me otherwise. > Comments before I post the patch to do so? Well, my argument is weaker now that we know DJGPP uses different numberings. I was simply saying that GCC, for a specific target, almost always uses the same register numbering in both STABS and Dwarf 2. So I viewed the fact that Dwarf 2 always uses the svr4 numbering as a mere consequence of other conditions: - Dwarf 2 has only been widely used on ELF-based systems, and - ELF systems, unsurprisingly, use the svr4 numbering. But now that we know DJGPP actually does use different numberings depending on the debug format, that's a genuine conflicting precedent. So I can see going either way.