From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17235 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2002 20:03:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17226 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 20:03:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 20:03:01 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DAB3D14; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:01:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CA3768C.3020906@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:03:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Delete write_fp() and friends References: <3CA28E57.9080108@cygnus.com> <3CA360CB.D9D579AA@redhat.com> <1020328185523.ZM27447@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 > On Mar 28, 10:28am, Michael Snyder wrote: > > >> > Well, almost, I left dwarf2cfi.c's write_fp() as is - someone might be >> > interested in the code. >> > >> > Assuming no issues are raised, and my builds come back clean, I'll >> > commit it next week. > >> >> So what should calls to write_fp be replaced with? > > > It looks to me like there was only one call to write_fp() and that > occurred in sparc-tdep.c. Andrew replaced that call with a call to > write_register(). I need to examine that a bit more carefully though. > But, ahem, it would've been nice for Andrew to tell us this in the > prefatory text preceding the patch. True, it was intentional - to see who was awake. I figured that a patch to delete write_fp() was going to be examined very very carefully :-) enjoy, Andrew