This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [obish] More osabi comments
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:57:42 -0400
- Subject: Re: [obish] More osabi comments
- References: <3F9948BA.4050201@redhat.com>
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:43:54AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> More comments the better ...
>
> Recent discussions to do with rs6000 compatibility left me wondering how
> come "amd64 can run code for i386" wasn't getting a hit. The attached
> comment explains why the test (both old and new) works for the 32-bit vs
> 64-bit case.
>
> I also changed "atom" to the more common OO term "singleton".
>
> committed,
> Andrew
> @@ -333,6 +333,14 @@
> type that is compatible with the desired machine type. Right
> now we simply return the first match, which is fine for now.
> However, we might want to do something smarter in the future. */
> + /* NOTE: cagney/2003-10-23: The code for "a can_run_code_for b"
> + is implemented using BFD's compatible method (a->compatible
> + (b) == a -- the lowest common denominator between a and b is
> + a). That method's definition of compatible may not be as you
> + expect. For instance, while "amd64 can run code for i386"
Did you mean to have another clause, or is this "while" left over?
> + (or more generally "64-bit ISA can run code for the 32-bit
> + ISA"). Fortunatly, BFD doesn't normally consider 32-bit and
"Fortunately"
> + 64-bit "compatible" so won't get a match. */
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer