From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3676 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2003 18:48:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3655 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 18:48:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.equallogic.com) (65.170.102.10) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 18:48:38 -0000 Received: from cygnus.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cygnus.equallogic.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CImbf29932 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:48:37 -0500 Received: from deneb.dev.equallogic.com (deneb.dev.equallogic.com [172.16.1.99]) by cygnus.equallogic.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CImaI29911; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:48:36 -0500 Received: from PKONING.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by deneb.dev.equallogic.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CImZX17164; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:48:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15983.36589.555000.415537@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:48:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: drow@mvista.com Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, mec@shout.net, stcarrez@nerim.fr, brobecker@gnat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl Subject: Re: 8-byte register values on a 32-bit machine References: <200303021659.h22Gxc908446@duracef.shout.net> <3E6F53B3.6010803@redhat.com> <20030312155116.GA3669@nevyn.them.org> <3E6F7C6F.2030805@redhat.com> <20030312183517.GA26765@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:29:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney Daniel> wrote: >> > >The new code fixes some reported wrong-value-reported bugs in >> other >debugging >situations; one of them was reported just >> recently. So I don't think >'equalled the functionality of the >> old mechanism' is really quite fair. >> >> True. However, breaking `long long' is a serious regression. If >> a developer can't trust that, what can they trust? Daniel> Historically it hasn't been all that trustable anyway. I Daniel> don't have a testcase handy but CORE_ADDRs in GDB backtraces Daniel> tend to be wrong, even when they're properly saved to the Daniel> stack. Et cetera. I don't like the way this discussion is going. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the words. A quick review of the thread doesn't help make it clearer. We have a large body of code full of long long variables, compiled for MIPS using the o32 ABI. So each of those ends up in a register pair. I'm not aware of any reported problems in dealing with long long variables on that platform. So... if the current proposal has the side effect of breaking that working function, on the grounds that it "wasn't all that reliable", I've got to ask why that's a valid argument. If that's not the current proposal, could you reword it to help eliminate the confusion over what you intend? Thanks, paul