From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13649 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2003 17:04:40 -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 13641 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2003 17:04:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2003 17:04:39 -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 h94H4d128341 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:04:39 -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 h94H4dc28891 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:04:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-46.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h94H4cbe016990; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:04:38 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h94H4WI27388; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:04:32 -0700 Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:04:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031004170432.ZM27387@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c (sh_use_struct_convention): Restructure and fix" (Oct 4, 11:54am) References: <20031004113939.GK11435@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3F7EED21.1060902@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Corinna Vinschen Subject: Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c (sh_use_struct_convention): Restructure and fix Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 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