This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: mips-tdep.c: FP varargs fixes
- From: Michael Snyder <Michael dot Snyder at access-company dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at mips dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Nigel Stephens <nigel at mips dot com>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:44:54 -0700
- Subject: Re: mips-tdep.c: FP varargs fixes
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0703231339070.6921@perivale.mips.com> <200703231449.l2NEnQSb031165@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0703261627260.32723@perivale.mips.com> <20070410154430.GG10890@caradoc.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0704171356050.17222@perivale.mips.com>
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 15:50 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > If you really want to build up some bonus points, you could extend the
> > argument passing testcases to trigger some of these cases :-)
>
> I think gdb.base/funcargs.exp and gdb.base/varargs.exp should already
> cover the interesting combinations and I would suggest that only if any
> new problem pops up, they should get updated to take it into account.
>
> > Yes, this is OK. I'll just trust you on the underlying ABI issues,
> > since you know it better than I do. It all looks sane.
>
> Well, GCC is the definite reference in this case ...
You would think so -- but GCC has been known to get it wrong.
Historically, when gcc differs from the MIPS spec, we go with
the MIPS spec. Even if it means our tests fail.