This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [rfa] ARM .cfi_* support
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 13:20:36 -0400
- Subject: Re: [rfa] ARM .cfi_* support
- References: <20040409210142.GA31470@nevyn.them.org> <20040422163114.GA32198@nevyn.them.org> <1082652476.20833.25.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <20040422170500.GA1074@nevyn.them.org>
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:05:00PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 05:47:57PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 17:31, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 05:01:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > This has been kicking around in my tree for a while now. It adds support
> > > > for the .cfi_* directives, using the standard or FPA registers - I didn't
> > > > bother adding any of the other coprocessor registers, since their numbering
> > > > is still a little unclear, and usually the general purpose registers are all
> > > > you need.
> > > >
> > > > Tested on arm-elf. OK?
> > >
> > > Ping?
> >
> > Sorry, missed this one (if you will post messages on a UK public
> > holiday...)
> >
> > I think that we should be looking to move to the EABI DWARF register
> > numbers soon (http://www.arm.com/products/DevTools/abi/aadwarf.pdf). I
> > would rather that we didn't introduce new uses of the old register
> > numbering schemes.
>
> In that case, would the patch be OK without the FPA registers? I only
> have actual need for the core integer registers.
Ping?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz