From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6397 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2003 22:47:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6357 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2003 22:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (12.150.115.133) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Jan 2003 22:47:06 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KMfm120650; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:41:48 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KMkvn19411; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:46:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0KMkuE20233; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:46:56 -0800 Received: (from rth@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0KMkuV12411; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 14:46:56 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:13:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Andreas Tobler Cc: David Edelsohn , GCC Subject: Re: call frame instruction encodings ? Message-ID: <20030120224656.GA12233@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Andreas Tobler , David Edelsohn , GCC References: <200301181626.LAA31952@makai.watson.ibm.com> <3E2981A7.60904@pop.agri.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E2981A7.60904@pop.agri.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00945.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 05:32:39PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > case DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended: > /* Obsoleted by DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf, but used by > older PowerPC code. */ > > In other words I should not use it when writing eh-frame info for darwin? Well, I imagine we'll support it forever in the unwinder. But there's probably no reason _not_ to change to DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf in the PPC backend. We've supported DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf since gcc 3.0, and the current unwind info isn't portable back to gcc 2.95 at all. > Is the 2.1 draft available on the net as well? I only have 2.0.0 93 The readings page has a link. Do recall that it's now dwarf3, not 2.1. r~