Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c (sh_use_struct_convention): Restructure and fix

Elena Zannoni
2003-10-09T22:51:36Z

Corinna Vinschen writes:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 11:54:09AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > > * sh-tdep.c (sh_use_struct_convention): Clean up to have a
> > > more readable code. Accomodate 4 byte structs with 4 byte sized
> > > first field (e.g. bitfields).
> >
> > Corinna,
> >
> > See: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-10/msg00033.html.
> > The ppc64_sysv_return_value code in ppc-sysv-tdep.c, has been written in
> > a way that allows a quick update to this new iterface.
>
> I think my patch is fine. I'm fixing non-deprecated functions to
> work better than before. There's nothing wrong with this and I
> don't see any gain to use an entirely new technique (2 days old!)
> to get probably new errors which I don't have using this method.
>
> Fixing the bugs is step 1. Converting them to a new technique is
> another, later step.

Hmm, I think you guys are all getting worked up for nothing, really.
Rereading the thread, I think Andrew was referring to a different way
to implement this set of ABI related functions, so that it would
become easier to do something else that Corinna had posted earlier,
namely supporting the Renesas ABI based on the current function,
i.e. here:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-09/msg00524.html

To do what needed, we would have to pass the function address as
parameter to these sh-tdep.c functions. If we tighten the lot into
fewer methods, then there are less things to change. So at this
point, what is still unresolved is whether or not somebody is going to
do the work, i.e. add an automatic mechanism to detect the abi.

If not, what Andrew is suggesting is not a priority.
If yes, it will need to be done.
And, really, this discussion belongs to the other thread.

As far as the change posted in this thread, I'll reply separately.

elena

>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen
> Cygwin Developer
> Red Hat, Inc.