On 23 Feb 2015 10:40, James Bowman wrote: > > > 2014-02-03 James Bowman > > > > > > * gdb/Makefile.in, gdb/configure.tgt: FT32 target added > > > * sim/configure.tgt: FT32 target added > > > * sim/configure: Regenerated > > > * sim/ft32/configure: Regenerated > > > * gdb/ft32-tdep.c,h: Support FT32 > > > * sim/ft32/*: FT32 simulator > > > > notes: > > - ChangeLog entries are split up across dirs > > Do you mean I should not split? Organize in some other way? see my patch here as an example: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-03/msg00173.html > > where's the testsuite man ? :) it should be trivial to start one with .s > > files -- just look at sim/testsuite/sim/. otherwise there's no way to keep > > regressions from slipping in. > > Good idea. We are currently running the gcc testsuite on the simulator > as our regression test. Would it be OK if I defer, and add a sim > testsuite after this submit? that's what everyone says ;). the trouble with having no sim testsuite is that people (like me) only use the sim testsuite to verify common/arch changes don't break things. you don't need a comphrensive one, just one or two basic things. that way we at least know the sim isn't completely hosed. > > > +/* Use an invalid address value as 'not available' marker. */ > > > +enum { REG_UNAVAIL = (CORE_ADDR) -1 }; > > This is actually the value -1 being cast. I have rewritten the line to > make this clearer. ah sorry about that > > since you're a new port, you should start with SIM_AC_OPTION_WARNINGS enabled. > > obviously that also means cleaning up all the warnings generated in the ft32/ > > subdir once you do :). > > Done - it now compiles without warnings. It would be nice to be able to > build it with warnings as errors. the functionality is in place, but it's disabled atm because the sim code has a lot of legacy that needs cleaning. although might be good to bite that bullet now and uncomment the lines in common/acinclude.m4 that disables it. > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/sim/ft32/interp.c > > > > ideally you'd switch to sim-reg.o in your Makefile's SIM_OBJS ... that'll > > provide these entry points. that would require also enabling sim-model.o > > & SIM_AC_OPTION_DEFAULT_MODEL support, but i don't think that'd be too hard. > > if you look at bfin/machs.c and start at "sim_machs", i think you should be > > able to track it down easily enough. > > This change is causing me some trouble. OK to defer it until after the > main submit? mach/model support can wait i'll follow up once i review the actual code ;) -mike