From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-7703-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 4884 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2002 17:21:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 4749 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 17:21:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 17:21:55 -0000
Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id RAA23884; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:21:53 GMT
Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma022823; Wed, 6 Feb 02 17:21:08 GMT
Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04096
	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:21:08 GMT
Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18])
	by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02197;
	Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:21:07 GMT
Message-Id: <200202061721.RAA02197@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Organization: ARM Ltd.
X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd)
X-Fax: +44 1223 400410
X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ.
X-Url: http://www.arm.com/
Subject: Moving to GDB_MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:21:00 -0000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2

I'm trying to get the ARM target building now at multi-arch partial.  It 
seems that the auto-generated definitions at this level are to an extent 
inconsistent.

For example, gdbarch_validate() requires that PUSH_ARGUMENTS is fully 
implemented as a multi-arch call, but the code in gdbarch.h does not fault 
a partial definition of this.

That is, in gdbarch.h we have 

#if (GDB_MULTI_ARCH > GDB_MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL) && defined (PUSH_ARGUMENTS)
#error "Non multi-arch definition of PUSH_ARGUMENTS"
#endif
#if GDB_MULTI_ARCH
#if (GDB_MULTI_ARCH > GDB_MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL) || !defined (PUSH_ARGUMENTS)
#define PUSH_ARGUMENTS(nargs, args, sp, struct_return, struct_addr) 
(gdbarch_pus
h_arguments (current_gdbarch, nargs, args, sp, struct_return, struct_addr))
#endif
#endif

but then in gdbarch_validate,

  if ((GDB_MULTI_ARCH >= 1)
      && (gdbarch->push_arguments == 0))
    fprintf_unfiltered (log, "\n\tpush_arguments");


Surely these two should be brought into line (one tests with ">" and the 
other with ">=").

R.