Re: Simulator testing for sh and sh64

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

Hi!

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:48:46 -0700, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:49:50 +0100
> Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> 
> > Anyway, the patch for sh-tdep that I posted in
> > <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-02/msg00299.html> (at the end)
> > also applies to sh64-tdep -- shall I commit the equivalent sh64-tdep
> > change without any testsuite testing, or let it bit-rot some more?

> With regard to sh64-tdep.c...  Are you able to do any testing at all
> to make sure that your patch basically works for sh64?  If you're
> able to get partial results with the other changes that you've made,
> I think that's good enough.  Even hand testing on something like
> the gdb.base/break.exp test case would be okay.

Not really, I'm afraid.

> So... if you're able to test it at all so that you know it basically
> works, then it can go in.  If not, I'd prefer to have sh64-tdep.c left
> in its current state until you are able to do some testing.

OK.


Is there any actual interest (other than ``nice to have'') in getting
sh64 back into a functional state, given that its GDB port has very much
been broken for several years already?


GrÃÃe,
 Thomas

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature