Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* x86-64 news
@ 2001-10-13 15:17 Andrew Cagney
  2001-10-14  1:34 ` Mark Kettenis
  2001-10-15  0:13 ` Jiri Smid
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-10-13 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Kettenis, Jiri Smid; +Cc: gdb

During the s390 merge I noticed that the x86-64 hasn't been mentioned in 
the NEWS file.  I'm also wondering how clean this new target is.  If it 
is a drop in (like s390) then it may be worth dropping it into the 5.1 
branch.

Andrew


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: x86-64 news
  2001-10-13 15:17 x86-64 news Andrew Cagney
@ 2001-10-14  1:34 ` Mark Kettenis
  2001-10-14  9:23   ` Andrew Cagney
  2001-10-15  0:13 ` Jiri Smid
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2001-10-14  1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ac131313; +Cc: smid, gdb

   Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:16:58 -0400
   From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>

   During the s390 merge I noticed that the x86-64 hasn't been mentioned in 
   the NEWS file.

There's a reason for that: there are still some bits missing.  Jiri
posted the bits and JimB is reviewing them.

   I'm also wondering how clean this new target is.  If it is a drop
   in (like s390) then it may be worth dropping it into the 5.1
   branch.

Let's *not* delay the 5.1 release for this.  We really should try to
get GDB 5.1 out of the door soon.  We can always drop the x86-64 stuff
into the 5.1 branch after the 5.1 release.

Mark


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: x86-64 news
  2001-10-14  1:34 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2001-10-14  9:23   ` Andrew Cagney
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-10-14  9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: smid, gdb

> Let's *not* delay the 5.1 release for this.  We really should try to
> get GDB 5.1 out of the door soon.  We can always drop the x86-64 stuff
> into the 5.1 branch after the 5.1 release.

I'm not going to delay it for that.  However, the rule that applied to 
s390 applies to x86-64.  If it can be plonked onto the 5.1 branch it can 
be plonked onto the 5.1 branch.

Andrew



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: x86-64 news
  2001-10-13 15:17 x86-64 news Andrew Cagney
  2001-10-14  1:34 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2001-10-15  0:13 ` Jiri Smid
  2001-10-15 10:30   ` Andrew Cagney
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Smid @ 2001-10-15  0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: Mark Kettenis, gdb

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

> During the s390 merge I noticed that the x86-64 hasn't been mentioned in the
> NEWS file.  I'm also wondering how clean this new target is.  If it is a drop
> in (like s390) then it may be worth dropping it into the 5.1 branch.
> 
> Andrew

  For the correct work of this target the dwarf2 call frame information must be
used for stack unwinding. I have already sent the necessary patch and asked
for approval. Without it the target vector is unusable.

-- 
Jiri Smid

---------------------------------------------------------------------
SuSE CR, s.r.o.                                 e-mail: smid@suse.cz
Drahobejlova 27                                tel:+420 2 96542 373
190 00 Praha 9                                 fax:+420 2 96542 374
Ceska republika                                http://www.suse.cz


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: x86-64 news
  2001-10-15  0:13 ` Jiri Smid
@ 2001-10-15 10:30   ` Andrew Cagney
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-10-15 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jiri Smid; +Cc: Mark Kettenis, gdb

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> During the s390 merge I noticed that the x86-64 hasn't been mentioned in the
>> NEWS file.  I'm also wondering how clean this new target is.  If it is a drop
>> in (like s390) then it may be worth dropping it into the 5.1 branch.
>> 
>> Andrew
> 
> 
> For the correct work of this target the dwarf2 call frame information must be
> used for stack unwinding. I have already sent the necessary patch and asked
> for approval. Without it the target vector is unusable.

Hmm, if it depends on that then it probably should skip 5.1.

Andrew



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-15 10:30 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-10-13 15:17 x86-64 news Andrew Cagney
2001-10-14  1:34 ` Mark Kettenis
2001-10-14  9:23   ` Andrew Cagney
2001-10-15  0:13 ` Jiri Smid
2001-10-15 10:30   ` Andrew Cagney

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox