From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20422 invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2006 05:12:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 20413 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Dec 2006 05:12:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:12:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABF748CDDA; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 02962-01-10; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (AStDenis-105-1-9-113.w81-248.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.248.210.113]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9D948CDA5; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:12:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7466034C099; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:13:03 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/sparc64] internal-error printing return value (Ada array) - take 2 Message-ID: <20061226051303.GJ3640@adacore.com> References: <20061224093615.GH19684@adacore.com> <200612241458.kBOEw8uf016599@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200612241458.kBOEw8uf016599@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 > > 2006-12-24 Joel Brobecker > > > > * sparc64-tdep.c (sparc64_extract_return_value): Add handling > > for array types. > > (sparc64_store_return_value): Likewise. > > > > Tested on sparc64-sun-solaris2.8, no regression. OK to commit? > With that change this is ok. Thanks Mark, I made the change you asked, and committed the change. > However, did you check how small arrays of floating-point numbers are > returned? I suspect there might be an issue with those. I just double-checked, and it seems to be working just fine. What I will do is extend our array-return testcase to include this type of array too. Thank you, -- Joel