From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28876 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2009 22:38:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 28861 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2009 22:38:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:37:57 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n1BMbcPr020722; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:37:38 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n1BMbbOb006035; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:37:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200902112237.n1BMbbOb006035@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20090211220824.GA26040@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (message from Jan Kratochvil on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:08:24 +0100) Subject: Re: [patch] Fix `return' of long/long-long results with no debuginfo References: <20090211194511.GA9324@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200902112040.n1BKdxb3028188@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090211205045.GB9762@caradoc.them.org> <200902112122.n1BLMf8q000100@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090211214646.GA22247@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200902112157.n1BLvplk011339@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090211220824.GA26040@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:08:24 +0100 > From: Jan Kratochvil > > 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?