From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa] Add e500 function call support to PPC
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 01:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030309005725.ZM21224@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> "[rfa] Add e500 function call support to PPC" (Mar 8, 2:11pm)
On Mar 8, 2:11pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> This adds support for the e500's function call convention to the PPC
> (ppc-sysv-tdep.c to be exact).
>
> The e500 passes everything in GPRs (which are extended to 64 bits).
>
[...]
> - if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_FLT)
> + if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_FLT
> + && arch_info->mach != bfd_mach_ppc_e500)
This construct bothers me. If it occurred only once, it might not
bother me so much, but (arch_info->mach != bfd_mach_ppc_e500) appears
far too often in the code for me to be comfortable with it. Suppose
we have another core with a similar property (of passing everything
in GPRs). If this happens, we'll end up with a proliferation of
additional checks for all of these different cores and things will
become quite unreadable. Please introduce a predicate into which
we can put this test and perhaps others as they arise. Then, only
the predicate will need to be modified.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-09 1:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-08 19:11 Andrew Cagney
2003-03-09 1:00 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2003-03-10 15:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-03-10 17:54 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-03-10 19:56 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-03-10 21:47 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-03-17 16:59 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17 17:45 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-03-17 18:28 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1030309005725.ZM21224@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox