From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18734 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2003 12:57:26 -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 18725 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2003 12:57:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 2003 12:57:26 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19qBTq-0004Zj-1q for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:57:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Supporting alternative ABIs Message-ID: <20030822125726.GB17380@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030822084054.GA1110@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030822084054.GA1110@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:40:54AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi, > > we're working on GDB support for a platform that supports two > different calling conventions; the user can choose which to use on a > per-function basis. Obviously, calling a function from GDB should > work, no matter which convention the function uses. We'd like folks' > thoughts on how this information should be carried through, from the > compiler, which actually has the information, to GDB's inferior > function call code, which needs it. Since this problem might arise > more often in future, we are looking forward to a generic solution. > Thanks to Jim Blandy, who wrote the first draft of this document after > a long discussion. This sounds entirely reasonable to me. Let's give it up for Dwarf 2, folks, for saving us from adding another incomprehensible letter to stabs! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer