Why is a hacked unwind-ia64.h/c part of binutils?
Paul Schlie
schlie@comcast.net
Fri Mar 18 02:31:00 GMT 2005
> 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
More information about the Binutils
mailing list