From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31883 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2003 16:11:39 -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 31864 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2003 16:11:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Oct 2003 16:11:38 -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 h9NGBbM14328 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:11:37 -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 h9NGBbr14569 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:11:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9NGBZcY021719; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:11:35 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9NGBTq13884; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:11:29 -0700 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:11:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031023161129.ZM13883@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[rfa:ppc] Convert PPC to "return_value"" (Oct 20, 7:27pm) References: <3F946F56.2050409@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:ppc] Convert PPC to "return_value" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00696.txt.bz2 On Oct 20, 7:27pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The attached switches the PPC architectures over to the new > "return_value" gdbarch method. I'm still thinking about this one. The problem that I have with this patch is that I'm not convinced that it's always desirable to combine the "use struct convention" code with the code which implements the loading/storing of the return value. Due to the way the PPC ABIs are specified, I do happen to like this approach for PPC. However, I'm not convinced that this is the best approach for all architectures. So I'm still mulling it over... Kevin