From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29034 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 12:06:42 -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 28921 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 12:06:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 12:06:17 -0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iANC5Hso028834; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:05:17 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iANC61gK010636; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:01 GMT Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id iANC61vH010634; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:01 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha set sender to rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org using -f Subject: Re: [RFA/sparc] pb doing next over struct-return function From: Richard Earnshaw To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Mark Kettenis , brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <01c4d14f$Blat.v2.2.2$de142420@zahav.net.il> References: <20041123053544.GM1141@adacore.com> <200411230833.iAN8X6Ru027549@juw15.nfra.nl> <01c4d14f$Blat.v2.2.2$de142420@zahav.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: GNU Message-Id: <1101211560.10166.34.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00446.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:33:06 +0100 (CET) > > From: Mark Kettenis > > CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > Return non-zero if the instruction at PC is an "unimp" instruction. > > ^^^^^^^^ ^ > > > > + else > > + { > > + /* There is no debugging information for this function to > > + help us determine whether this function returns a struct > > + or not. So we rely on another heuristic which is to check > > + the instruction at the return address and see if this is > > + a "unimp" instruction. If it is, then it is struct-return > > + function. */ > > > > an "unimp" instruction. > > ^ ^ > > Really? I'm not a native English speaker, but I think "a unimp" is > correct. It's like "a university", isn't it? > > Perhaps "the unimp instruction" would be better, though, since it's a > name of a specific instruction. Generally 'an' is used if the sound from the 'u' is as in 'um', but 'a' is used if it is as in 'you'. So, 'an umbrella', but 'a uniform'. The example above is difficult to rule on, because the mnemonic isn't a real word. Is the pronunciation as a single word, or as a set of letters (u-n-i-m-p)? If the former it's probably 'an'; for the latter it's probably 'a'. Since that's a matter of choice, then it's hard to ever be 100% accurate in this case. Confused? You should be... This is English we are talking about... R.