Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>,
	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c (sh_use_struct_convention): Restructure and fix
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1031004170432.ZM27387@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> "Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c (sh_use_struct_convention): Restructure and fix" (Oct  4, 11:54am)

On Oct 4, 11:54am, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> See: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-10/msg00033.html.
> The ppc64_sysv_return_value code in ppc-sysv-tdep.c, has been written in 
> a way that allows a quick update to this new iterface.

Andrew,

There are pros and cons to the approach that you used in
ppc64_sysv_abi_return_value().

On the pro side - and this is definitely a good thing - you keep the
struct convention information together with the implementation of how
to return a value.

But this is also a con because you've spread the definition of
"use_struct_convention" out over a much larger number of lines.  It
isn't (IMO) as easy to comprehend when arranged in this way.

The jury is still out (at least as far as I'm concerned) as to
which approach is better.  I do happen to think that your approach
is better for ppc64 (and ppc too), but this may not necessarily be the
case for other architectures.

With regard to Corinna's patch, she's fixed some bugs and has improved
readability.  If Corinna looks at your approach and finds it
compelling enough to redo her patch, that's fine.  But I don't think
there should be an (implied) requirement that she do so.

Kevin


  reply	other threads:[~2003-10-04 17:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-04 11:39 Corinna Vinschen
2003-10-04 15:54 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-04 17:04   ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2003-10-04 17:35     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-04 18:13       ` Kevin Buettner
2003-10-06 16:31         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-04 18:08   ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-10-06 15:52     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-07 14:52       ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-10-08 17:39         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-09 22:51     ` Elena Zannoni
2003-10-11 20:05       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-09 22:51 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-10-10  7:29   ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-10-10 15:01     ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-10-10 16:32       ` Elena Zannoni
2003-10-10 16:59         ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-10-10 17:56           ` Elena Zannoni
2003-10-10 19:14             ` Corinna Vinschen
2003-10-10 16:28     ` Elena Zannoni

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=1031004170432.ZM27387@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=kevinb@redhat.com \
    --cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=vinschen@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