From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30987 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2003 20:36:19 -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 30971 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 20:36:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2003 20:36:19 -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 h3HKaID06026 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:36:18 -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 h3HKaIq04747; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:36:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3HKaHI32506; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:36:17 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id BEDF32C43F; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:40:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16031.4435.627617.631813@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:36:00 -0000 To: Michael Snyder Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] values.c: don't fetch func void return value In-Reply-To: <3E9EE7E7.B91EFA27@redhat.com> References: <16029.54499.392215.696866@localhost.redhat.com> <3E9EE7E7.B91EFA27@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 Michael Snyder writes: > Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > While debugging the x86-64 I noticed that there were problems because > > gdb was trying to extract a void return value from a function. It > > already has set up the value structure with all the correct fields, > > Meaning the correct fields for a void return? > > > it > > seems a waste to go and ask the target for a value if we know there > > isn't one. > > Seems reasonable to me... and I don't see any specific maintainer. > [donning appropriate hat] Bless you, my child... > Thanks, committed elena > > > 2003-04-16 Elena Zannoni > > > > * values.c (value_being_returned): Don't fetch the return > > value if the return type is void. > > > > Index: values.c > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/uberbaum/gdb/values.c,v > > retrieving revision 1.47 > > diff -u -p -r1.47 values.c > > --- values.c 20 Feb 2003 00:01:07 -0000 1.47 > > +++ values.c 16 Apr 2003 21:29:19 -0000 > > @@ -1240,7 +1240,9 @@ value_being_returned (struct type *valty > > > > val = allocate_value (valtype); > > CHECK_TYPEDEF (valtype); > > - EXTRACT_RETURN_VALUE (valtype, retbuf, VALUE_CONTENTS_RAW (val)); > > + /* If the function returns void, don't bother fetching the return value. */ > > + if (TYPE_CODE (valtype) != TYPE_CODE_VOID) > > + EXTRACT_RETURN_VALUE (valtype, retbuf, VALUE_CONTENTS_RAW (val)); > > > > return val; > > }