From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15966 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2003 15:59:24 -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 15957 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2003 15:59:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2003 15:59:23 -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 h9FFxNM19719 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:59:23 -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 h9FFxNr22372 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:59:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9FFxMwC022899; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:59:22 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id EEA342C441; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:10:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16269.29059.795525.778852@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:59:00 -0000 To: Nick Clifton Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, rearnsha@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] coffread.c: delete param In-Reply-To: References: <16268.28727.18741.65995@localhost.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00490.txt.bz2 Nick Clifton writes: > Hi Elena, > > > Based on the discussion in this thread: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-10/msg00405.html > > > > I don't have a set up to test this, though. It does build, that's > > all I can say. > > Given Andrew's comment in the code, I would be rather wary of this > patch. Presumably there is some good reason for passing the > cs->c_sclass field in the (void *) pointer argument slot, or otherwise > Andrew would not have gone to all that trouble of casting it. Ah, not really. I think he was just compiling with -Werror. It's that you added that parameter there, several years ago. So I was wondering if you still had any interest in this code, and had a way of testing it. > > > - > > - /* FIXME: cagney/2001-02-01: The nasty (int) -> (long) > > - -> (void*) cast is to ensure that that the value of > > - cs->c_sclass can be correctly stored in a void > > - pointer in MSYMBOL_INFO. Better solutions > > - welcome. */ > > - gdb_assert (sizeof (void *) >= sizeof (cs->c_sclass)); > > msym = prim_record_minimal_symbol_and_info > > - (cs->c_name, tmpaddr, ms_type, (void *) (long) cs->c_sclass, > > + (cs->c_name, tmpaddr, ms_type, NULL, > > sec, NULL, objfile); > > > > [Richard, Nick, this does affect arm-coff] > > Does it improve things ? :-) If so, what ? > It certainly opens the way for more cleanups. Is arm-coff still alive and of interest? elena > Cheers > Nick >