From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14438 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 18:56:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 14427 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 18:56:36 -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 18:56:14 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2779898216; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:56:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3B798022; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:56:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JCJcR-0000Ma-1O; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:56:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix parameter coercing for Ada function calls (take 2) Message-ID: <20080108185611.GA1375@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> <20080108161935.GB24533@caradoc.them.org> <20080108185219.GF11650@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080108185219.GF11650@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/msg00152.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:52:19AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Does this look like what you had in mind? It's a little more work > than my first patch, but indeed a little more elegant. Yes, exactly. > If PARAM_TYPE is non-NULL, it is the expected parameter type. > IS_PROTOTYPED is non-zero if the function declaration is prototyped. */ Please add the new parameter to the comment. > static struct value * > value_arg_coerce (struct value *arg, struct type *param_type, > - int is_prototyped) > + int is_prototyped, CORE_ADDR *pc) ... and call it sp :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery