From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25752 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2007 14:51:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 25744 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2007 14:51:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:51:12 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l2NEnQLC006685; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:49:26 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0/Submit) id l2NEnQSb031165; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:49:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200703231449.l2NEnQSb031165@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: macro@mips.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, nigel@mips.com, macro@linux-mips.org In-reply-to: (macro@mips.com) Subject: Re: mips-tdep.c: FP varargs fixes References: 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: 2007-03/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:41:16 +0000 (GMT) > From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" > @@ -3272,7 +3283,7 @@ > /* Write this portion of the argument to a general > purpose register. */ > if (argreg <= MIPS_LAST_ARG_REGNUM > - && !fp_register_arg_p (typecode, arg_type)) > + /*&& !fp_register_arg_p (typecode, arg_type)*/) > { > LONGEST regval = extract_signed_integer (val, partial_len); > /* Value may need to be sign extended, because > What's up with this bit? Your ChangeLog message says this: > boundary, align stack_offset too. Write floating-point > arguments to the appropriate integer register, if we're not > passing in a floating point register. But that matches the old code, not the new code. In any case please don't comment out code like that. The code is either right or wring. In the latter case it should be removed. If there is something non-obvious going on, it needs a proper comment. Thanks, Mark