From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6761 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2007 13:36:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 6743 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2007 13:36:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:36:54 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D977982DE; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:36:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC9198212; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:36:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HyT1y-0006Kf-FS; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:37:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [2/10] Remove &builtin_type_ from tdep code (amd64/s390/sparc64) Message-ID: <20070613133702.GA24327@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070613131002.GA23051@caradoc.them.org> <200706131317.l5DDH90O009367@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706131317.l5DDH90O009367@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-06/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 03:17:09PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 03:06:11PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > > However, this macro is not fully equivalent; in particular it > > > is no longer possible to use &builtin_type_double. > > > > You keep saying this, but is it true? :-) > > Well, you can take the address, but you won't get the gdbarch-swap > effect any more. So if you were relying on that, it'll break ... Right. Fortunately here we don't need the swap effect, since we have the right gdbarch - but I'd forgotten about post_init. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery