From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-41060-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 25681 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2005 20:32:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 25655 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2005 20:32:34 -0000
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:32:34 +0000
Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2])
	by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j99KWHKF004656;
	Sun, 9 Oct 2005 22:32:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1])
	by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j99KWHS0025935;
	Sun, 9 Oct 2005 22:32:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)
	by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j99KWGYO030371;
	Sun, 9 Oct 2005 22:32:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:32:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200510092032.j99KWGYO030371@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: jimb@redhat.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <m31x2ybkw2.fsf@alligator.red-bean.com> (message from Jim Blandy
	on Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:44:29 -0700)
Subject: Re: RFC: Relax checking of garbage struct return values
References:  <m31x2ybkw2.fsf@alligator.red-bean.com>
X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2

> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:44:29 -0700
> 
> The comments are supposed to have the story.  Tested on
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> 
> 2005-10-05  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* gdb.base/structs.exp (any): New function.
> 	(test_struct_returns): Don't make any assumptions at all about
> 	what value the function returns when GDB can't set the return
> 	value.

I remember having a discussion about this with Andrew some time ago.
I believe Andrew argued that if the compiler doesn't pass L<n> as the
buffer, this should be considered a compiler bug.

Anyway, there is another case where things fail.  Some compilers use a
"static" buffer to store function values.  On those systems these
tests fail too.

I think your patch is ok: gdb is not a compiler testsuite.

Mark