From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13935 invoked by alias); 7 May 2004 23:10:11 -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 13904 invoked from network); 7 May 2004 23:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.77.109) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 May 2004 23:10:10 -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 i47NA59x001562; Sat, 8 May 2004 01:10:06 +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 i47NA5li013882; Sat, 8 May 2004 01:10:05 +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 i47NA5ld013878; Sat, 8 May 2004 01:10:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 23:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200405072310.i47NA5ld013878@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <409C0F30.4090409@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 07 May 2004 18:35:28 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC/RFA] Print in-memory struct return values References: <200405071707.i47H7kG5071172@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <409C0F30.4090409@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 18:35:28 -0400 From: Andrew Cagney > The current GDB doesn't print the return value when using `finish' for > functions return structures that are not returned in registers. Note > that this is a regression from GDB 6.0 for many systems. Anyway, the > attached patch provides a way to fix this, and adds the necessary > support to the i386 target. > > If there are no comments, I'll check this in in a few days. Eli, is > the doc bit OK? Why not add another member to `enum return_value_convention' so that return_value() can directly differentate between these two cases? I thought about that. Returning an address from gdbarch_return_value is a bit weird. Hmm, it just occurs to me that we make a copy of the value and have gdbarch_return_value return that. Hmm, back to the drawing board. Expect a new patch soon. Mark