This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: eliminate deprecated_insert_raw_breakpoint. what's left.

Peter Schauer wrote:

> > > I think you could/should zap exec_one_dummy_insn, provided that you test
> > > a dummy function call on the oldest AIX version that GDB has to support,
> > > with a large aggregate parameter, which is passed by value.
> > 
> > The only version I have ready access to is AIX 7.1, and on this there
> > are no testsuite regression (and in fact, quite a number of failures
> > seem to go away!) when zapping exec_one_dummy_insn.
> +1 for zapping exec_one_dummy_insn.
> > I'm not sure which versions we need to / should support in GDB; I guess
> > the oldest version where the OS itself is still supported by IBM is 6.1.
> Maybe somebody could test if zapping exec_one_dummy_insn on AIX 6.1
> has any negative effect, and then be done with it.
> But even if that can't be tested, I am all in favour of getting rid
> of it, perhaps with a detailed comment in the commit message for the
> removal (or adding a link to this thread).

I've now got access to an AIX 6.1 machine and repeated the experiment --
with the same result.  No regressions when zapping exec_one_dummy_insn,
and in fact about 100 FAILs fixed.

So I think we should probably just do it at this point.


  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]