Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 19:19:34 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-Id: <9791-Fri03Aug2001191934+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3B6AEF74.318.FCAC74@localhost> (pavenis@lanet.lv)
Subject: Re: Test binaries of gcc-3.0.1 20010802 (prerelease)
References: <3B6AD5E9 DOT 23174 DOT 98E16A AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv) <3B6AEF74 DOT 318 DOT FCAC74 AT localhost>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:37:40 +0300
> 
> Maybe it's would be best to put all related patches in a single place
> to avoid need to collect then from mailing list (otherwise it's very
> simple to forget some of them)

If it would help you, I'm willing to post all of the relevant patches
together.

> > There's another issue related to GCC 3.0: the register-naming scheme
> > in the DWARF2 debug info.  I'd be interested to hear your opinion; if
> > you think the current register names should not be changed, I'd like
> > to make a change in GDB before v5.1 is out (the pretest has just
> > started).
> 
> Currently I have put in suggestion Mark sent recently:
> 
> #undef DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER
> #define DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER(n) \
>   ((write_symbols == DWARF2_DEBUG) ? svr4_dbx_register_map[n] : dbx_register_map[n])

Thanks!

> But I don't have any objections to leave things as they were (without this
> addition)

No, I like what Mark suggested better, since it makes DJGPP use the
same register-naming scheme as other ports that use DWARF2.  It also
makes any changes in GDB unnecessary, since the default for x86
targets assumes the above register-naming.

> It seems that -gcoff support have suffered from too serious bitrot:
> 	trying to run LAPACK tests with this gcc version run into trouble
> 	when GAS (binutils-2.11.2 and also some other recent versions) 
> 	failed when -g was specified (with -gstabs+ all was Ok)

Is it a problem with Gas or with GCC?