This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
To: Brian Ford <ford at vss dot fsi dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 20 Apr 2004 08:54:16 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404131433490.29901@thing1-200> <200404161650.i3GGoPxI054716@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404161224450.14168@thing1-200> <200404181838.i3IIccMf006115@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <uk70clauk.fsf@elta.co.il> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404191015470.16802@thing1-200>
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>

> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:21:35 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Brian Ford <ford@vss.fsi.com>
> 
> I'm seriously considering reverting that change.  I believe my original
> gut feeling was correct before Jim Blandy convinced me otherwise.
> Comments before I post the patch to do so?

FWIW, I tend to agree that Cygwin should use the same register
numbering as almost all the other i386 targets.

References:
- [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin
  - From: Brian Ford
- Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin
  - From: Mark Kettenis
- Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin
  - From: Brian Ford
- Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin
  - From: Mark Kettenis
- Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin
  - From: Eli Zaretskii
- Re: [PATCH] Proper _to_regnum for DWARF on Cygwin
  - From: Brian Ford

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]