From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24857 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 16:19:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 24849 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 16:19:57 -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; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:19:38 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7CA98216; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:19:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CC598022; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:19:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JCHAt-0006Sk-SG; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:19:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Need post-processing of parameters for function calls in Ada Message-ID: <20080108161935.GB24533@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080108143622.GG24614@adacore.com> <20080108150114.GA19378@caradoc.them.org> <20080108152900.GB11650@adacore.com> <20080108153648.GA21928@caradoc.them.org> <20080108154941.GC11650@adacore.com> <20080108155647.GA23394@caradoc.them.org> <20080108161337.GD11650@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080108161337.GD11650@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:13:37AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > Should I proceed with my proposal? > > > > I would prefer to put the call inside the existing value_arg_coerce, > > at least to start with. > > Do you mean: dropping the new language field, and just add a call > to the Ada coerce routine inside value_arg_coerce (or in other words, > more the change I first proposed inside value_arg_coerce)? That's > a much smaller change, and I'm OK with that! Either that, or calling the language hook from value_arg_coerce. I'm happy to just call the Ada function directly. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery