From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14916-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21685 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2002 20:31:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21657 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 20:31:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 20:31:37 -0000
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11147;
	Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469)
	id D64FB10A8C; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:31:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15565.44421.333605.509796@localhost.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:31:00 -0000
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>,
        gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Altivec ABI patches
In-Reply-To: <npg01effwi.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
References: <15561.48188.141526.557982@localhost.redhat.com>
	<1020426230236.ZM31350@localhost.localdomain>
	<15562.646.506619.140778@localhost.redhat.com>
	<1020427080809.ZM32701@localhost.localdomain>
	<15565.26939.309256.444181@localhost.redhat.com>
	<npg01effwi.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01137.txt.bz2

Jim Blandy writes:
 > 
 > I don't see anything here that prevents vectors from being coerced to
 > pointers to their first element.  Isn't there some change needed in
 > evaluate_subexp_with_coercion?


You mean value_arg_coerce()?  There is no arithmetic you can do with
these types.  Anyway, you are right I forgot that. My tests didn't
catch it because I was doing the call by hand after having done a step
into and finish from the function. The registers still contained the
correct values from the gcc-initiated call. Moving the gdb-initiated
call to before the gcc-initiated one exposed the problem.

I'll make sure the registers are trashed between calls.

Elena