From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17551 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2018 21:58:54 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 17510 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jul 2018 21:58:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=fairly, confident, belonging X-HELO: sesbmg23.ericsson.net Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (HELO sesbmg23.ericsson.net) (193.180.251.37) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:58:52 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1531432729; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/OLxQ3U7TrUd5nLSQXa+GYK++kAzPyhhxUOLNmUgWcA=; b=B/iIXqeVqKMNgu1Kq1H7/RWbciaHcTPsjRR3t6dM3RmJZZFz+114ht9KsV0MVUX/ 9h29Zw8qs52iHmkLZwNMnUASyamew4rti/9JuNKQo6YRbN68YzDTxoU9FOvyU9C1 4MxFUKteJVDYgOHBCGPhnw+TcFpiHyZRy21nrmIa3zs=; Received: from ESESSMB501.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.119]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7D.41.25360.91FC74B5; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:58:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMR503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.112) by ESESSMB501.ericsson.se (153.88.183.162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:58:49 +0200 Received: from ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) by ESESSMR503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:58:49 +0200 Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 23:58:49 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=TTU9ZynsFpAKRETl6alp9asn/7owkUQUikzdYpqXqo8=; b=XYPHMZ5PvFZ4XUfvn9Gm5I60Gk2WUr6zgL60Pg8vnZC34SxrFgtW5t+lQjWI5C92LTKPcf/QgYmrQJgPEHqb3HegjjXj2SegKuocgCqb2jY/Q7ViIf4Sw7UpJ1CA21xG1F9UGJh2Ah9XRzE3ltZ9mXNfiWbp6/PV3X+GV6JwGO8= Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=simon.marchi@ericsson.com; Received: from [142.133.61.147] (192.75.88.130) by DM6PR15MB2394.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:8d::28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.952.17; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:58:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFA 05/13] Make a few calls in *-tdep.c for effect To: Tom Tromey , References: <20180712205208.32646-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180712205208.32646-6-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <35c1df51-3538-53ee-4e55-4df53ec1528d@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180712205208.32646-6-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: simon.marchi@ericsson.com Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00364.txt.bz2 On 2018-07-12 04:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > In a few cases, there were calls in *-tdep.c that I did not want to > remove because I was not certain that it was safe -- perhaps the side > effect of the function (generally throwing an error) was desired. I am fairly confident that the find_function_addr calls are not necessary. If you look at call_function_by_hand_dummy, it calls find_function_addr with the same function argument before calling push_dummy_call: CORE_ADDR funaddr = find_function_addr (function, &values_type, &ftype); So if the function has to throw, it will be in this invocation. The fact that no widely tested architecture does that also leads me to think it's unnecessary. I don't think the get_adi_info_proc call is useful either. All it does is return the sparc64_adi_info belonging to inferior_ptid. If it already exists, the call does nothing. If it does not already exist, it will be created. The call adi_available just before will have created it, if it didn't already. Simon