From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9721 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 19:34:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 9712 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 19:34:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:33:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF122A96BB for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:33:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id WEWQgJkIZenK for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:33:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907C92A96B8 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:33:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23CEAE7ACB; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:33:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:34:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix parameter coercing for Ada function calls (take 2) Message-ID: <20080108193333.GG11650@adacore.com> 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> <20080108185611.GA1375@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080108185611.GA1375@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 > > 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. Cool! Attached is what I ended checking in. > > 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 :-) Eyes rolling backwards... Thanks for spotting this! Time to go to bed... Thanks again, -- Joel