From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28981 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 19:57:32 -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 28961 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 19:57:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU) (128.32.153.227) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 19:57:26 -0000 Received: from tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.7/8.12.7/3.141592645) with ESMTP id iANJjpmL007581; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (hilfingr@localhost) by tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) with ESMTP id iANJjpri007578; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:45:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200411231945.iANJjpri007578@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: Eli Zaretskii cc: Mark Kettenis , brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/sparc] pb doing next over struct-return function In-Reply-To: Message from Eli Zaretskii of "Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:29:40 +0200." <01c4d14f$Blat.v2.2.2$de142420@zahav.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7574.1101239150.1@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:57:00 -0000 From: Paul Hilfinger X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00454.txt.bz2 > > an "unimp" instruction. > > ^ ^ > > Really? I'm not a native English speaker, but I think "a unimp" is > correct. It's like "a university", isn't it? Well, not really. "University" starts with the semi-consonant sound "y" (I'm sure there is more formal term than semi-consonant, but I am no linguist), whereas "unimp" starts with a vowel sound, "uh" as in "onion". > Perhaps "the unimp instruction" would be better, though, since it's a > name of a specific instruction. Would be a conservative choice, but alas the context refers to an instruction INSTANCE, not an instruction category. Thus, the implication of "the" would be either that there is one and only one unimp instruction in the universe, and here it is, or that I had previously identified a small section of my assembly listing, and I am now referring to the one unimp instruction in that section. Paul Hilfinger