From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20122 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2004 15:13:15 -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 20095 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2004 15:13:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.77.109) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2004 15:13:14 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i3HFD5oZ000767; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:13:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i3HFD5wU047410; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:13:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i3HFD5YP047407; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:13:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:13:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200404171513.i3HFD5YP047407@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <407EF6E4.3000306@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:56:04 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Work around GCC compiler bugs in frame.c References: <200404151637.i3FGbDHm000410@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <407EF6E4.3000306@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:56:04 -0400 From: Andrew Cagney > I've always considered functions return a struct (as opposed to a > pointer to a struct) bad programming style, but now I know why. The > following code in frame.c triggers a bug in the system compiler on > OpenBSD/vax (which is basically GCC 2.95.3 with some local patches): > > && frame_id_eq (get_frame_id (this_frame), > get_frame_id (this_frame->next)) Would introducing frame_eq(), frame_inner() be more robust? Either way you'll likely want to add a comment. That would make sense I guess. It's the frame that we care about, not the ID. I'll check wrap something up... Mark