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

Mark Kettenis
2009-02-11T22:38:03Z

> 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?