From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3885 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2003 20:06:45 -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 3777 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 20:06:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 20:06:44 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18tE3p-0005e7-00; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:46:53 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18tCAP-0003OW-00; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:45:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Paul Koning , 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 Message-ID: <20030312194533.GA8630@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Paul Koning , mec@shout.net, stcarrez@nerim.fr, brobecker@gnat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl References: <200303021659.h22Gxc908446@duracef.shout.net> <3E6F53B3.6010803@redhat.com> <20030312155116.GA3669@nevyn.them.org> <3E6F7C6F.2030805@redhat.com> <20030312183517.GA26765@nevyn.them.org> <15983.36589.555000.415537@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20030312185952.GA27508@nevyn.them.org> <3E6F8D38.6030207@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E6F8D38.6030207@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:40:40PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >I don't know if it would break or not. > > > > > >>If that's not the current proposal, could you reword it to help > >>eliminate the confusion over what you intend? > > > > > >No one is proposing to leave it broken. To pull up an example from > >earlier in the thread, Andrew broke x86-64 when working on the frame > >changes. It was an accident, and eventually fixed (by Michal Ludvig, I > >might add). I apparently broke long long (in registers) in some of my > >DWARF-2 support patches. I'm working to fix it. I'm only one person > >and I only have so much time. > > For this `long long' case, can a simple local tweak that restores > existing behavior (while the new code is finished / tested). That way > the pressure is off you to get this stuff finished quickly instead of > cleanly. Except that I don't think such a local tweak is possible in this case. I could be wrong. Anyone's welcome to try, including the maintainers of the code in question. I'm working on the proper solution. Hold your horses, people. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer