From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-295778-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28129 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2011 14:55:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 28119 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jul 2011 14:55:39 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:55:09 +0000
Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so1905334qwh.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.87.143 with SMTP id w15mr2622976qcl.170.1309532108824; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.214.83 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ydd4o36rsbn.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
References: <20110625161357.GA5401@intel.com>	<4E089A88.60401@redhat.com>	<BANLkTimw8O0UnnVATPKgrRCVT=82sO48Dw@mail.gmail.com>	<4E0C8361.5050403@redhat.com>	<BANLkTinOGKQCq2abZW0L7CLOQ901+Oodxg@mail.gmail.com>	<4E0C904E.8090504@redhat.com>	<BANLkTiknF6h_qJ9rAgBikdAM8O7RgSdyHA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimGtPskWYsGOi+hp59DKnDW7wD2sw@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTimYZoGBBUxq+uMehqGxR5E1cpEavA@mail.gmail.com>	<yddvcvnxkm0.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>	<BANLkTikRuXz1RP1LxU8BCEFoT+pNP5e_Jw@mail.gmail.com>	<yddr56bxkb1.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>	<BANLkTimRWq4S4bKQpvuYzO3Go6yMc2fcgg@mail.gmail.com>	<4E0CC85E.3090401@redhat.com>	<BANLkTimt9V4kyKE2jmixeMOW=k7ghWrw+A@mail.gmail.com>	<yddaacyxtjd.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>	<BANLkTi=1Y8wHj6Y_vMp5GJSp-C+yNVa5dw@mail.gmail.com>	<yddvcvmrujf.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>	<BANLkTinfLL-Hcpr4JU7UaeD5Tdii8r20xQ@mail.gmail.com>	<yddliwirtdj.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>	<BANLkTikPrxg+1n=Qr4ku19=vweOHJA3RJw@mail.gmail.com>	<ydd4o36rsbn.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:55:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=1OOLHZzQyMTuiqeKOK6iK6JysxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH [8/n]: Prepare x32: PR other/48007: Unwind library doesn't work with UNITS_PER_WORD > sizeof (void *)
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, 	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> w=
rote:
> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Then move it below the definition of struct _Unwind_Context with a
>>
>> It won't work since I need to define a macro before struct _Unwind_Conte=
xt.
>
> Then this does seem to be a case for libgcc_tm_file indeed. =A0Ugly that
> the unwinder configuration has to be split between two different files
> this way, but unavoidable, it seems. =A0At least when libgcc_tm_file moves
> to libgcc/config.host, it won't any longer be split between gcc and libgc=
c.
>

We need target support for unwind:

1. Target configuration.
2. Target implementation.

Unfortunately, they can't be put in the same file.  If we really want to use
the same file, we can add some macros like:

UNWIND_CONFIGURE
UNWIND_IMPLEMENT

and we can include the same file twice.


--=20
H.J.