This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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] Use DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf rather than DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended in libffi

From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>,Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:13:57 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf rather than DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended in libffi
References: <20050806095421.GQ30077@devserv.devel.redhat.com>

On 06/08/2005, at 2:54 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

Hi!

GCC switched from the nonstandard DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended opcode to DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf in early 2002, so I guess it is time for libffi to follow it. It causes problems in GDB which doesn't handle DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended (it should handle it IMHO anyway, but there is no reason why libffi should keep using the obsolete opcode forever). Ok for HEAD?

OK.

2005-08-06 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>

    * src/powerpc/ppc_closure.S (ffi_closure_SYSV): Use
    DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf rather than
    DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended.
    * src/powerpc/sysv.S (ffi_call_SYSV): Likewise.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

References:
- [PATCH] Use DW_CFA_offset_extended_sf rather than DW_CFA_GNU_negative_offset_extended in libffi
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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