From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13036 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2003 21:16:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13028 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2003 21:16:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.inka.de) (193.197.184.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2003 21:16:09 -0000 Received: from raven.inka.de (uucp@[127.0.0.1]) by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.5) id 19lxXs-0002zM-00; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:16:08 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by raven.inka.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C2A1B7; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:15:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by raven.inka.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 993CD1B9; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:15:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:16:00 -0000 From: Josef Wolf To: Andrew Cagney Cc: schwab@suse.de, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Need Help for bringing m68k-based bdm target-patches form gdb-5.2.1 to gdb-5.3 Message-ID: <20030810211504.GC24206@raven.inka.de> References: <20030731223514.GD20282@raven.inka.de> <3F312844.9000308@redhat.com> <20030806221642.GB3349@raven.inka.de> <3F3505B2.9040104@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F3505B2.9040104@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020531 X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 10:31:14AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Do you have a a copyright ssignment/disclaimer, and do you know who owns > the code you're working on - can it be contributed to the FSF? The files claim to be GPL. > >On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >You are talking about current (pre-6.0) code? Both functions don't exist > >in 5.3. > > > > > >>(and GDB is desperatly wants to eliminate that hack). > > > > > >Could you please activate verbose mode? Honestly, I did not get what you > >try to say here. Do you want to eliminate generic_unwind_get_saved_register > >or frame_register/sentinel_frame_prev_register? > > The method register_offset_hack, and the way GDB assumes that a value's > location can be described by an offset into a register buffer. This > isn't sufficient. A value may be in multiple registers. Oh, I see.... But then, what does this mean to porters? What do they need to do when they want to stay on the bleeding edge of gdb? -- Please visit and sign http://petition-eurolinux.org and http://www.ffii.org -- Josef Wolf -- jw@raven.inka.de --