* [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
@ 2022-05-03 11:19 Luis Machado
2022-05-03 11:24 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-03 15:21 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-03 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Doing a 32-bit build with "--enable-targets=all --disable-sim" fails to link
properly.
--
loongarch-tdep.o: In function `loongarch_gdbarch_init':
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:443: undefined reference to `loongarch_r_normal_name'
loongarch-tdep.o: In function `loongarch_fetch_instruction':
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:37: undefined reference to `loongarch_insn_length'
loongarch-tdep.o: In function `loongarch_scan_prologue(gdbarch*, unsigned long long, unsigned long long, frame_info*, trad_frame_cache*) [clone .isra.4]':
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:87: undefined reference to `loongarch_insn_length'
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:88: undefined reference to `loongarch_decode_imm'
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:89: undefined reference to `loongarch_decode_imm'
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:90: undefined reference to `loongarch_decode_imm'
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:91: undefined reference to `loongarch_decode_imm'
binutils-gdb/gdb/loongarch-tdep.c:92: undefined reference to `loongarch_decode_imm'
--
Given the list of 64-bit BFD files in
opcodes/Makefile.am:TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES, it looks like GDB's
ALL_TARGET_OBS list is including files that should be included in
ALL_64_TARGET_OBS instead.
This patch accomplishes this and enables a 32-bit build with
"--enable-targets=all --disable-sim" to complete.
Moving the bpf, tilegx and loongarch files to the correct list means GDB can
find the correct disassembler function instead of finding a null pointer.
We still need the "--disable-sim" switch (or "--enable-64-bit-bfd") to
make a 32-bit build with "--enable-targets=all" complete correctly
---
gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
--- a/gdb/Makefile.in
+++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
@@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
arch/amd64.o \
arch/riscv.o \
+ bpf-tdep.o \
ia64-linux-tdep.o \
ia64-tdep.o \
ia64-vms-tdep.o \
+ loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
+ loongarch-tdep.o \
mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
mips-linux-tdep.o \
mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
@@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
- sparc64-tdep.o
+ sparc64-tdep.o \
+ tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
+ tilegx-tdep.o
+
# All other target-dependent objects files (used with --enable-targets=all).
ALL_TARGET_OBS = \
@@ -762,7 +768,6 @@ ALL_TARGET_OBS = \
avr-tdep.o \
bfin-linux-tdep.o \
bfin-tdep.o \
- bpf-tdep.o \
bsd-uthread.o \
cris-linux-tdep.o \
cris-tdep.o \
@@ -798,8 +803,6 @@ ALL_TARGET_OBS = \
linux-record.o \
linux-tdep.o \
lm32-tdep.o \
- loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
- loongarch-tdep.o \
m32c-tdep.o \
m32r-linux-tdep.o \
m32r-tdep.o \
@@ -856,8 +859,6 @@ ALL_TARGET_OBS = \
symfile-mem.o \
tic6x-linux-tdep.o \
tic6x-tdep.o \
- tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
- tilegx-tdep.o \
v850-tdep.o \
vax-netbsd-tdep.o \
vax-tdep.o \
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-03 11:19 [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS Luis Machado
@ 2022-05-03 11:24 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-03 11:30 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-03 15:21 ` Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2022-05-03 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado, gdb-patches
On 2022-05-03 12:19, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
> ---
> gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
> index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
> --- a/gdb/Makefile.in
> +++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
> @@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
> arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
> arch/amd64.o \
> arch/riscv.o \
> + bpf-tdep.o \
> ia64-linux-tdep.o \
> ia64-tdep.o \
> ia64-vms-tdep.o \
> + loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
> + loongarch-tdep.o \
> mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
> mips-linux-tdep.o \
> mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
> @@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
> sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
> sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
> sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
> - sparc64-tdep.o
> + sparc64-tdep.o \
> + tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
> + tilegx-tdep.o
> +
>
Spurious empty line.
In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we need to move that one?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-03 11:24 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2022-05-03 11:30 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-03 21:51 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-03 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves, gdb-patches
On 5/3/22 12:24, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-05-03 12:19, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>
>> ---
>> gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
>> index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
>> --- a/gdb/Makefile.in
>> +++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
>> @@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>> arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
>> arch/amd64.o \
>> arch/riscv.o \
>> + bpf-tdep.o \
>> ia64-linux-tdep.o \
>> ia64-tdep.o \
>> ia64-vms-tdep.o \
>> + loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
>> + loongarch-tdep.o \
>> mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
>> mips-linux-tdep.o \
>> mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
>> @@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>> sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
>> sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
>> sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
>> - sparc64-tdep.o
>> + sparc64-tdep.o \
>> + tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
>> + tilegx-tdep.o
>> +
>>
>
> Spurious empty line.
Fixed now.
>
> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we need to move that one?
*sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which
makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register a
disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it
from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-03 11:30 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-05-03 21:51 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-05 9:06 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-03 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves, gdb-patches
On 5/3/22 12:30, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
> On 5/3/22 12:24, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 2022-05-03 12:19, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>
>>> ---
>>> gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>> index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
>>> --- a/gdb/Makefile.in
>>> +++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>> @@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>> arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
>>> arch/amd64.o \
>>> arch/riscv.o \
>>> + bpf-tdep.o \
>>> ia64-linux-tdep.o \
>>> ia64-tdep.o \
>>> ia64-vms-tdep.o \
>>> + loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
>>> + loongarch-tdep.o \
>>> mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
>>> mips-linux-tdep.o \
>>> mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>> @@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>> sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>> sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
>>> sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
>>> - sparc64-tdep.o
>>> + sparc64-tdep.o \
>>> + tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
>>> + tilegx-tdep.o
>>> +
>>
>> Spurious empty line.
>
> Fixed now.
>
>>
>> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we
>> need to move that one?
>
> *sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
>
> opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which
> makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register a
> disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
>
> TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it
> from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
Patch to binutils sent here:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-May/120651.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-03 21:51 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-05-05 9:06 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-05 10:29 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-26 7:22 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-05 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves, gdb-patches
On 5/3/22 22:51, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
> On 5/3/22 12:30, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> On 5/3/22 12:24, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-03 12:19, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>> index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
>>>> --- a/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>> +++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>> @@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>> arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
>>>> arch/amd64.o \
>>>> arch/riscv.o \
>>>> + bpf-tdep.o \
>>>> ia64-linux-tdep.o \
>>>> ia64-tdep.o \
>>>> ia64-vms-tdep.o \
>>>> + loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
>>>> + loongarch-tdep.o \
>>>> mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
>>>> mips-linux-tdep.o \
>>>> mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>> @@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>> sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>> sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
>>>> sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
>>>> - sparc64-tdep.o
>>>> + sparc64-tdep.o \
>>>> + tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
>>>> + tilegx-tdep.o
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Spurious empty line.
>>
>> Fixed now.
>>
>>>
>>> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we
>>> need to move that one?
>>
>> *sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
>>
>> opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which
>> makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register
>> a disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
>>
>> TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it
>> from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
>
> Patch to binutils sent here:
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-May/120651.html
I've pushed the binutils patch. Are there any objections to the gdb-side
patch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-05 9:06 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-05-05 10:29 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-30 10:25 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-26 7:22 ` Luis Machado
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2022-05-05 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado, gdb-patches
On 2022-05-05 10:06, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 5/3/22 22:51, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we need to move that one?
>>>
>>> *sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
>>>
>>> opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register a disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
>>>
>>> TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
>>
>> Patch to binutils sent here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-May/120651.html
>
> I've pushed the binutils patch. Are there any objections to the gdb-side patch?
Nope. Please go ahead and merge it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-05 10:29 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2022-05-30 10:25 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-30 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves, gdb-patches
On 5/5/22 11:29, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-05-05 10:06, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 5/3/22 22:51, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>
>>>>> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we need to move that one?
>>>>
>>>> *sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
>>>>
>>>> opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register a disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
>>>>
>>>> TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
>>>
>>> Patch to binutils sent here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-May/120651.html
>>
>> I've pushed the binutils patch. Are there any objections to the gdb-side patch?
>
> Nope. Please go ahead and merge it.
Pushed now. Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-05 9:06 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-05 10:29 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2022-05-26 7:22 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-26 13:57 ` Simon Marchi
2022-05-26 13:59 ` Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-26 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves, gdb-patches
On 5/5/22 10:06, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
> On 5/3/22 22:51, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> On 5/3/22 12:30, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>> On 5/3/22 12:24, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-03 12:19, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>> index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
>>>>> --- a/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>> +++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>> @@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>>> arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
>>>>> arch/amd64.o \
>>>>> arch/riscv.o \
>>>>> + bpf-tdep.o \
>>>>> ia64-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>> ia64-tdep.o \
>>>>> ia64-vms-tdep.o \
>>>>> + loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>> + loongarch-tdep.o \
>>>>> mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>> mips-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>> mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>> @@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>>> sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>> sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
>>>>> sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
>>>>> - sparc64-tdep.o
>>>>> + sparc64-tdep.o \
>>>>> + tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>> + tilegx-tdep.o
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Spurious empty line.
>>>
>>> Fixed now.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we need to move that one?
>>>
>>> *sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
>>>
>>> opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register a disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
>>>
>>> TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
>>
>> Patch to binutils sent here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-May/120651.html
>
> I've pushed the binutils patch. Are there any objections to the gdb-side patch?
Ping?
32-bit builds with --enable-targets=all are still failing due to the misplacement of these places.
If we drop the tilegx change, would that be acceptable?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-26 7:22 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-05-26 13:57 ` Simon Marchi
2022-05-26 17:45 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-26 13:59 ` Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2022-05-26 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado, Pedro Alves, gdb-patches
On 2022-05-26 03:22, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
> On 5/5/22 10:06, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> On 5/3/22 22:51, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>> On 5/3/22 12:30, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/22 12:24, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-03 12:19, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>>> index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
>>>>>> --- a/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>>> +++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>>> @@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>>>> arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
>>>>>> arch/amd64.o \
>>>>>> arch/riscv.o \
>>>>>> + bpf-tdep.o \
>>>>>> ia64-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>> ia64-tdep.o \
>>>>>> ia64-vms-tdep.o \
>>>>>> + loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>> + loongarch-tdep.o \
>>>>>> mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>> mips-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>> mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>> @@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>>>> sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>> sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>> sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
>>>>>> - sparc64-tdep.o
>>>>>> + sparc64-tdep.o \
>>>>>> + tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>> + tilegx-tdep.o
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Spurious empty line.
>>>>
>>>> Fixed now.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we need to move that one?
>>>>
>>>> *sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
>>>>
>>>> opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register a disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
>>>>
>>>> TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
>>>
>>> Patch to binutils sent here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-May/120651.html
>>
>> I've pushed the binutils patch. Are there any objections to the gdb-side patch?
>
> Ping?
>
> 32-bit builds with --enable-targets=all are still failing due to the misplacement of these places.
>
> If we drop the tilegx change, would that be acceptable?
You might have not received, but Pedro said "Nope. Please go ahead and merge it." on
May 5th.
https://pi.simark.ca/gdb-patches/de20c1c0-6945-0de4-e3e3-11522fc74458@arm.com/T/#md5f08ad8f5b43fb3c3d0f731de2c807260197142
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-26 13:57 ` Simon Marchi
@ 2022-05-26 17:45 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-26 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi, Pedro Alves, gdb-patches
On 5/26/22 14:57, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-05-26 03:22, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> On 5/5/22 10:06, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>> On 5/3/22 22:51, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>> On 5/3/22 12:30, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>> On 5/3/22 12:24, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-03 12:19, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> gdb/Makefile.in | 13 +++++++------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/gdb/Makefile.in b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>>>> index 418094775a5..d80087749de 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>>>> +++ b/gdb/Makefile.in
>>>>>>> @@ -715,9 +715,12 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>>>>> arch/aarch64-mte-linux.o \
>>>>>>> arch/amd64.o \
>>>>>>> arch/riscv.o \
>>>>>>> + bpf-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> ia64-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> ia64-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> ia64-vms-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> + loongarch-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> + loongarch-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> mips-fbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> mips-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> mips-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> @@ -734,7 +737,10 @@ ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>>>>>>> sparc64-netbsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> sparc64-obsd-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> sparc64-sol2-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> - sparc64-tdep.o
>>>>>>> + sparc64-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> + tilegx-linux-tdep.o \
>>>>>>> + tilegx-tdep.o
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spurious empty line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed now.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In opcodes, tilegx is in TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. So why did we need to move that one?
>>>>>
>>>>> *sigh*... I think that needs to be fixed as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> opcodes/disassemble.c defines ARCH_tilegx if BFD64 is defined, which makes it a 64-bit BFD target. So a 32-bit build makes it not register a disassembler function (leading to GDB internal errors).
>>>>>
>>>>> TILE-Gx is a 64-bit core according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TILE-Gx. So I suppose we need to move it from TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES to TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES.
>>>>
>>>> Patch to binutils sent here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-May/120651.html
>>>
>>> I've pushed the binutils patch. Are there any objections to the gdb-side patch?
>>
>> Ping?
>>
>> 32-bit builds with --enable-targets=all are still failing due to the misplacement of these places.
>>
>> If we drop the tilegx change, would that be acceptable?
>
> You might have not received, but Pedro said "Nope. Please go ahead and merge it." on
> May 5th.
>
> https://pi.simark.ca/gdb-patches/de20c1c0-6945-0de4-e3e3-11522fc74458@arm.com/T/#md5f08ad8f5b43fb3c3d0f731de2c807260197142
*sigh* My inbound mail server seems to not like Pedro, so randomly decides to drop his e-mails.
I'll double check the list from now on. Thanks for the pointer.
>
> Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-26 7:22 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-26 13:57 ` Simon Marchi
@ 2022-05-26 13:59 ` Tom Tromey
2022-05-26 17:50 ` Luis Machado
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2022-05-26 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado via Gdb-patches; +Cc: Pedro Alves, Luis Machado
>>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
Luis> 32-bit builds with --enable-targets=all are still failing due to
Luis> the misplacement of these places.
Luis> If we drop the tilegx change, would that be acceptable?
IIUC, the original objection was that tilegx was listed as 32-bit in
opcodes, but was moved to the 64-bit section in your patch. However,
tilegx is actually a 64-bit arch, so you sent another patch to correct
this in opcodes.
If that's all true then I think your patch is correct as-is and should
be checked in.
Thank you for doing this.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-26 13:59 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2022-05-26 17:50 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-26 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches; +Cc: Pedro Alves
On 5/26/22 14:59, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>
> Luis> 32-bit builds with --enable-targets=all are still failing due to
> Luis> the misplacement of these places.
>
> Luis> If we drop the tilegx change, would that be acceptable?
>
> IIUC, the original objection was that tilegx was listed as 32-bit in
> opcodes, but was moved to the 64-bit section in your patch. However,
> tilegx is actually a 64-bit arch, so you sent another patch to correct
> this in opcodes.>
> If that's all true then I think your patch is correct as-is and should
> be checked in.
Thanks Tom.
Indeed. There has been some discussions on binutils@. Sounds like we need to fix a few
more things, but this patch should address the GDB side of things for now.
>
> Thank you for doing this.
>
> Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-03 11:19 [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS Luis Machado
2022-05-03 11:24 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2022-05-03 15:21 ` Tom Tromey
2022-05-03 16:20 ` Luis Machado
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2022-05-03 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado via Gdb-patches
>>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
Luis> Doing a 32-bit build with "--enable-targets=all --disable-sim" fails to link
Luis> properly.
FWIW this patch seems like a candidate for the gdb 12 branch to me.
Is there a bug open for this problem in bugzilla?
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-03 15:21 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2022-05-03 16:20 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-04 8:00 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-03 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches
Hi Tom,
On 5/3/22 16:21, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>
> Luis> Doing a 32-bit build with "--enable-targets=all --disable-sim" fails to link
> Luis> properly.
>
> FWIW this patch seems like a candidate for the gdb 12 branch to me.
> Is there a bug open for this problem in bugzilla?
No. We've discussed this somewhat on gdb-patches@ and binutils@, but the
conclusion was that it didn't look like a blocker for the release. I can
open a ticket and prepare a backport to GDB 12.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS
2022-05-03 16:20 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-05-04 8:00 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-05-04 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches
On 5/3/22 17:20, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 5/3/22 16:21, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado via Gdb-patches
>>>>>>> <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>>
>> Luis> Doing a 32-bit build with "--enable-targets=all --disable-sim"
>> fails to link
>> Luis> properly.
>>
>> FWIW this patch seems like a candidate for the gdb 12 branch to me.
>> Is there a bug open for this problem in bugzilla?
>
> No. We've discussed this somewhat on gdb-patches@ and binutils@, but the
> conclusion was that it didn't look like a blocker for the release. I can
> open a ticket and prepare a backport to GDB 12.
Here it is: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29119
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-30 10:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-05-03 11:19 [PATCH] Move 64-bit BFD files from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS Luis Machado
2022-05-03 11:24 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-03 11:30 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-03 21:51 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-05 9:06 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-05 10:29 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-30 10:25 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-26 7:22 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-26 13:57 ` Simon Marchi
2022-05-26 17:45 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-26 13:59 ` Tom Tromey
2022-05-26 17:50 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-03 15:21 ` Tom Tromey
2022-05-03 16:20 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-04 8:00 ` Luis Machado
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).