From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19887 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2009 20:59:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 19877 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Mar 2009 20:59:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:59:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767DF2C1A45; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:59:04 -0400 (EDT) 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 UuCd2oYeS5fb; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369FF2C1A3E; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1A85E5BD21; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:48:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Mark Kettenis , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix `return' of long/long-long results with no debuginfo Message-ID: <20090311205901.GB25708@adacore.com> References: <20090211220824.GA26040@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200902112237.n1BMbbOb006035@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090211225012.GA28683@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200903042129.n24LTUKa000770@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090309015510.GA28986@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200903092233.n29MXEfG019900@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090311163024.GA25708@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 > The original patch was motivated by a case where casting to int gave a > bad result. Then Mark had a counter-proposal, which was to use the > expression's type, rather than assuming 'int'. Finally, I suggested > simply requiring a cast, resulting in this patch. Ah, OK - I didn't understand the final decision very well. Sorry about that. I'm starting to understand what the error message is trying to say, now. Can we maybe explore other suggestions? I can suggest for instance: Return value type not available for selected stack frame.\n Please use an explicit cast of the value to return. I think we should also probably add a note in the documentation as well. In case a user still gets confused as to why he gets an error. > So, the real question for you is how you think it ought to work. Yes, I think so. -- Joel