Re: [patch] Fix `return' of long/long-long results with no debuginfo

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:08:24 +0100
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> 
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:22:41 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> # I disagree.  I think it is the behaviour that makes the most sense in
> # a historical context.  And I have a (somewhat) vague recollection that
> 
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:57:51 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Sorry Jan, are you really just ignoring my remarks and actually making
> > this diff more unacceptable to me?
> 
> I cannot agree GDB should prefer to simulate the K&R C behavior over
> ANSI/ISO C behavior.  Sure I do not have the approval right so I
> will do anything I am told with the patch to check it in.  Still FYI
> so far I has not been convinced to change my opinion on this (K&R
> vs. ANSI/ISO C) specific subject.

We can agree to disagree.  That said, there should be no reason to
unecessarily get rid of the K&R and older ISO C heritage if there is
no good reason to do so.  The bug report you cite provides a reason.
In my reply to Daniel's mail I provided an alternative suggestion:

> ..., would it be an idea to use the type of the return value
> expression given by the user instead of int as a fallback?

Which you seemed to ignore.  I think it actually makes the return
command more powerful, by letting the user (implicitly or explicitly)
specify the return type of a function for which debugging information
is missing.  Can you please consider the suggestion I make?