This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Using values to handle unwinding
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org, Mark Kettenis <kettenis at gnu dot org>, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:53:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Using values to handle unwinding
- References: <20071017160350.GA26804@caradoc.them.org> <20080331220500.GA21611@caradoc.them.org> <20080404173710.GE24753@adacore.com>
Thanks for looking at them!
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:37:10AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > I'd love comments on the patches, the overall approach, and how to
> > proceed. Ideally, we check this in (breaking many targets), update
> > each target completely as someone needs that target, and make sure all
> > targets are updated by the next release of GDB. I personally use
> > amd64, i386, arm, mips, m68k, and powerpc; so I'm pretty likely to
> > update all of those (mechanically). I'll do the laggards before the
> > next release too, but not right this minute. I would appreciate
> > assistance with other targets :-)
> You said "mechanically" - does it mean you are not able to test some
> of the targets you listed?
I can test a representative triplet. But there's a wide variety of OS
tdep files with sniffers; the patches I've already posted change about
a dozen targets, only one of which I can readily test. So a certain
amount of mechanical conversion and proofreading is the best I can
> We can use a second pair of eyes as our means of testing...
Yes indeed :-)