From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-37071-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 7230 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 11:33:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 7192 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 11:33:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 11:33:10 -0000
Received: from zaretski ([80.230.156.45])
	by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR)
	with ESMTP id DWK98866 (AUTH halo1);
	Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:32:22 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:33:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <01c4d14f$Blat.v2.2.2$de142420@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
CC: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <200411230833.iAN8X6Ru027549@juw15.nfra.nl> (message from Mark
	Kettenis on Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:33:06 +0100 (CET))
Subject: Re: [RFA/sparc] pb doing next over struct-return function
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20041123053544.GM1141@adacore.com> <200411230833.iAN8X6Ru027549@juw15.nfra.nl>
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00445.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:33:06 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Return non-zero if the instruction at PC is an "unimp" instruction.
>        ^^^^^^^^                              ^
> 
>    +  else
>    +    {
>    +      /* There is no debugging information for this function to
>    +         help us determine whether this function returns a struct
>    +         or not.  So we rely on another heuristic which is to check
>    +         the instruction at the return address and see if this is
>    +         a "unimp" instruction.  If it is, then it is struct-return
>    +         function.  */
> 
> an "unimp" instruction.
>  ^                                           ^

Really?  I'm not a native English speaker, but I think "a unimp" is
correct.  It's like "a university", isn't it?

Perhaps "the unimp instruction" would be better, though, since it's a
name of a specific instruction.