From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11081 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2009 22:16:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 11072 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2009 22:16:42 -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, 22 Apr 2009 22:16:38 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3MMF1v4004656; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:15:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n3MMF0p2006994; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:15:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200904222215.n3MMF0p2006994@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: jonas.maebe@elis.ugent.be CC: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <691B0BA8-C606-42FF-A796-76CC9C31556A@elis.ugent.be> (message from Jonas Maebe on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:45:22 +0200) Subject: Re: [patch] Set calling convention of methods References: <7B6EF4DA-76C8-4D9C-8B9F-94153EF1C4E1@elis.ugent.be> <691B0BA8-C606-42FF-A796-76CC9C31556A@elis.ugent.be> 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00619.txt.bz2 > From: Jonas Maebe > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:45:22 +0200 > > On 20 Apr 2009, at 20:25, Tom Tromey wrote: > > > "dwarf2.h" is not included in many places in gdb, and not by any > > header. So, assuming your uses of this field will end up in truly > > generic code, I think the thing to do is introduce a new enum, and > > then translate values in the DWARF reader. It is tempting to simply > > reuse the DWARF enum internally, but I think that goes against the GDB > > style. > > Ok, I can adapt my patch to clean that up. I'd prefer my i386 Borland > fastcall patch to be committed first though, since changing this > calling convention stuff would also affect that patch. Is that > possible given my current in-progress state as far as the copyright > assignment process is concerned? If so, Mark, could you tell me > whether anything should still be changed in the last version I sent you? That last diff is ok with me, but Tom has a point here. The effect on the i386-specific bits should be fairly minimal. The copyright assignment process needs to be dealt with before we move forward though.