This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [ping] Re: [Patch] arch recognition fix for osabi.c
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>, kewarken at qnx dot com,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:19:26 -0400
- Subject: Re: [ping] Re: [Patch] arch recognition fix for osabi.c
- References: <08c201c334e6$ccb8c750$0202040a@catdog> <20030617155147.GA25280@nevyn.them.org> <08d801c334ea$23fd99c0$0202040a@catdog> <20030619190853.GA25755@nevyn.them.org> <113c01c347bd$ba454a00$0202040a@catdog> <200307111626.h6BGQi3W033834@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3F1800A2.90605@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:13:54AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Apparently this doesn't work for MIPS, since BFD declares different
> >processors (which it calls "machines") to be incompatible. I'm not
> >quite familiar with MIPS, but I suppose this is not quite true, but
> >that the various MIPS processors cannot be mapped on a one-dimensional
> >quantity that expresses the features of the various CPU's. That could
> >be a valid reason why the MIPS "compatibility function" is written the
> >way it is. Perhaps it can be improved? If so, I think that's the way
> >to go. Otherwise, I think you should register for all CPU types that
> >you support.
>
> Can, to make life less painful, a wild card (-1 safe?) be added?
Now that's a good idea, simple and safe.
I still believe (see my last message in this thread) that the problem
is one in osabi.c; that a return of either of its arguments from the
compatibility function should be accepted. But if a wildcard is
preferred then that would solve the problem too, and I just want the
problem solved...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer