From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10915 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2003 16:50:47 -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 10905 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 16:50:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 16:50:46 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7DGojt16166 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:50:45 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7DGocL30954; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:50:38 -0400 Received: from dot.sfbay.redhat.com (dot.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.7]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7DGobO13957; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:50:37 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by dot.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h7DGoZP12240; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:50:35 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: dot.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:50:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michal Ludvig , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb Subject: Re: [testsuite & dwarf2] How to handle store.exp failure on AMD64? Message-ID: <20030813165034.GA12234@redhat.com> References: <3F3212B7.8060003@suse.cz> <20030807135035.GA28000@nevyn.them.org> <3F326928.3020502@redhat.com> <20030807150201.GA29511@nevyn.them.org> <3F3275EC.3000702@redhat.com> <3F32C75D.2010007@suse.cz> <3F39B678.70409@redhat.com> <20030813045405.GB11912@redhat.com> <3F3A4DAD.7000702@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F3A4DAD.7000702@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:39:41AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The initial status of each register is drawn from the CIE, and not the FDE. I understand that. > If GCC is going to move forward with optimizations that involve local > functions not complying to the ABI, it will need to supply complete > INITIAL_INSTRUCTIONS information. WHY? I just gave you an argument why that information doesn't do you any particular good, NO MATTER WHAT THE ABI IS. Please refute it rather than ignoring it. Moreover, the algorithm I suggested that you use -- assume saved -- is also completely independant of the ABI, so its' not like GDB needs to hard code ABI specific information either. r~