This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: ARM float changes
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com,Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:35:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: ARM float changes
- References: <200202081713.RAA08910@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> <3C640AF4.email@example.com>
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:29:24PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >For instance, my results on i386-linux, callfuncs.exp:
> >>standard coercion default coercion
> >>================= ================
> >>GCC 2.95
> >>stabs+ 1 XPASS, 1 FAIL, 1 XFAIL 1 FAIL, 2 XPASS
> >>dwarf2 1 FAIL 5 FAIL
> >>GCC 3.0.4pre
> >>stabs+ 1 XPASS, 1 XFAIL 2 XPASS
> >>dwarf2 0 FAILS 4 FAIL
> >So doesn't all this mean that the coercion model should be selected based
> >on the debug-info type? Can we do that dynamically in the back-end?
> I suspect, in truth the target should never have even been allowed to
> enter the picture. The core of GDB should have set a policy based on
> debug info and then stuck with it.
> The change at least makes things consistent with other modern targets.
> From memory the comment that goes with standard_...() hints strongly
> that no target should ever be using default_...().
> I think this illustrates my contention that GDB should bite the bullet
> and ``break'' some targets but fix the problem.
See my comment on gdb@ about this just now. While standard appears to
be the way to go for DWARF-2, the right solution for stabs just seems
to be pretending we always have a prototype. I'll look over what
various targets actually set this to... dealing with setting it based
on debug info is somewhat dubious, since debug info may be mixed in the
> I can always make the next release 6.0 :-^
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer