From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7051 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2011 12:55:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 7043 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2011 12:55:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_IB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:55:15 +0000 Received: by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 546) id A6561CB043E; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:55:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:10:00 -0000 From: Olivier Hainque To: Rainer Orth Cc: Olivier Hainque , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: unwinding fallback for mips-irix6 n32 Message-ID: <20110616125514.GA21634@mel.act-europe.fr> References: <20101226094957.GA13777@cardhu.act-europe.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01244.txt.bz2 Hi Rainer, Rainer Orth wrote: > I've finally gotten around to this. Apart from some comment and code > cleanups along the lines of the sol2-unwind.h files, I had to minimally > adapt the N32 multithreaded code sequence for IRIX 6.5.30 that I'm > running here. While I was at it, I added N64 support which proved to be > almost trivial. You'll probably have to adapt this for the version of > IRIX 6.5 you're running, or we could simply skip the single varying > insn. Either way is fine with me. There's a micro stronger confidence in exact matches, but this could lead to spurious propagation failures on other variants of the OS where a third version of that insn could show up while still part of a valid context. > With this patch, a couple of gnat.dg tests are fixed: Nice :) > 64-bit stack_check2.adb remains broken, though. It SEGVs in memcpy, but > the stack is corrupted, so I cannot say yet what's going on. > > I'll run a full bootstrap over the weekend. It seems that the remaining > libjava failures are unrelated. OK ... > I may backport this to the 4.6 branch after some time (trivial apart > from the gcc -> libgcc move). I will only try 4.5 if I manage to add > O32 support. This might be a non-trivial excercise since the libc > implementation is quite different. Understood; > Thanks for providing the patch. My pleasure. Thanks a lot for your work over it and feedback, much appreciated. Cheers, Olivier