From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5903 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2003 20:33:22 -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 5894 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2003 20:33:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2003 20:33:20 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9AKXJM00323 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:33:19 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9AKXJD14330 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:33:19 -0400 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-15.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.15]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9AKXHi01103 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:33:18 -0700 Received: by cygbert.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 36D5858046; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:33:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:33:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: Fix float handling Message-ID: <20031010203316.GR14344@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031004121102.GL11435@cygbert.vinschen.de> <16263.30.584298.427986@localhost.redhat.com> <20031010192252.GQ14344@cygbert.vinschen.de> <16263.5574.385852.935704@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16263.5574.385852.935704@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00379.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 04:25:42PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Corinna Vinschen writes: > > > > First, in contrast to non-FPU CPUs, arguments are never split between > > > > registers and stack. If an argument doesn't fit in the remaining registers > > > > it's always pushed entirely on the stack. My testing led me to the wrong > > > > assumption that just types > 16 bytes are pushed entirely on the stack. > > > > I have a problem with this first part of the comment. This one does > > not fit well as a comment to the helper function. I would suggest to > > add this (carefully rephrased) to sh_push_dummy_call_fpu(), substituting > > the very short > > > > /* No data is passed partially in registers. */ > > > > Where is that? I think you can add it before the function > sh_push_dummy_call_fpu. Or where it makes more sense. I don't care, as > long as the whole thing is as clear as possible. It is wasy to > understand the code now, but I bet a few months from now we will all > have forgotten the details. I've applied this with the comment at the point I think it fit most well. I agree to what you're saying, therefore I'm always trying to put some additional comments in. The above comment is now inline, beginnig at line 890 in sh_push_dummy_call_fpu(), exactly above the code which cares for this very situation. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc.