From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31197 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2003 21:58:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31182 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 21:58:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 21:58:55 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8MLwr124203 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:58:54 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8MLwrc11101; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:58:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-12.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.12]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8MLwpVG001830; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:58:51 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h8MLwjG29726; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:58:45 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:58:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030922215845.ZM29725@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[rfa?] Implement ppc32 SYSV {extract,store} return value" (Sep 17, 5:54pm) References: <3F68D829.6010001@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Kevin Buettner , Jason R Thorpe Subject: Re: [rfa?] Implement ppc32 SYSV {extract,store} return value MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00483.txt.bz2 On Sep 17, 5:54pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > If nothing else I'd really like a comment on the general approach taken > - the netbsd function wrapping a more generic method, What are you referring to here? I looked at the netbsd portion of your patch and I don't see what you're referring to. I do see that your using the ppc_sys_v_abi_... version for extract_return_value and store_return_value. But I think that's okay until we find that it's broken in ways not already handled by the code you've just added. (This is different than the case that I commented on previously -- In which it appeared that code for one ABI was reusable by another. In such a case, I think clearly distinguishing the code implementing the two ABIs is a good idea. For NetBSD, it's supposed to be implementing the System V ABI, right? That being the case, I think it's just fine to do things the way you've arranged it.) > and a better word than "broken" I guess. At the moment, I can't think of anything better. (Or, to put it another way, anything that I've thought of ends up being overly verbose.) Anyway, your patch looks okay to me. Feel free to check it in. Thanks, Kevin