From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15494 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2004 15:37:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15471 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2004 15:37:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Sep 2004 15:37:41 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C93ky-0002Xb-MO; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:37:40 -0400 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Earnshaw , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] ARM .cfi_* support Message-ID: <20040919153740.GA6325@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Earnshaw , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <20040409210142.GA31470@nevyn.them.org> <20040422163114.GA32198@nevyn.them.org> <1082652476.20833.25.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <20040422170500.GA1074@nevyn.them.org> <20040503172036.GA15556@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040503172036.GA15556@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:20:36PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:05:00PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 05:47:57PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 17:31, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 05:01:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > This has been kicking around in my tree for a while now. It adds support > > > > > for the .cfi_* directives, using the standard or FPA registers - I didn't > > > > > bother adding any of the other coprocessor registers, since their numbering > > > > > is still a little unclear, and usually the general purpose registers are all > > > > > you need. > > > > > > > > > > Tested on arm-elf. OK? > > > > > > > > Ping? > > > > > > Sorry, missed this one (if you will post messages on a UK public > > > holiday...) > > > > > > I think that we should be looking to move to the EABI DWARF register > > > numbers soon (http://www.arm.com/products/DevTools/abi/aadwarf.pdf). I > > > would rather that we didn't introduce new uses of the old register > > > numbering schemes. > > > > In that case, would the patch be OK without the FPA registers? I only > > have actual need for the core integer registers. > > Ping? Hi Richard, When you get a chance, could you respond to this patch? -- Daniel Jacobowitz