Re: Why is a hacked unwind-ia64.h/c part of binutils?

[Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>]

> From: James E Wilson <wilson@specifixinc.com>
>> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 11:59, Paul Schlie wrote:
>> Although I understand these files historically contain some generic unwind
>> definitions, would there be opposition to accepting a patch to arguably
>> more properly peel the generic portions out, and correspondingly enable
>> the specification of target specific unwind type sizes which may be more
>> appropriate for smaller targets, as opposed to presuming they need be
>> defined by the ia64's native word type sizes?
> 
> This seems rather confused to me. ...

- it was, I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

> I think you confusing the general GCC unwind support with the GCC IA-64
> specific unwind support.  Most gcc targets use the dwarf2 unwind
> support.  Only IA-64 uses the IA-64 unwind support.  These are rather
> different things, though the dwarf2 unwind support is based on many of
> the concepts developed for the IA-64 unwind support, the object file
> encodings are completely different.

- yes, thank for straightening me out.

> As for the type sizes, these are defined by the C++ ABI, which in turn
> is based on the Itanium unwind ABI, which specifies use of 64-bit
> types.  It would certainly be wrong to change this for IA-64, and it is
> arguably wrong for any other target without justification.
>
> I know that you have a modified AVR port which sets long long to a
> 32-bit type, but you failed to mention that as your justification.
> While changes to the generic unwind support might be reasonable because
> of this, changes to the IA-64 port are not.

- understood, and apologize for my half baked earlier misguided question.

> -- 
> Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com