From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-17398-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18830 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2002 22:51:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 18815 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 22:51:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 22:51:29 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26317;
	Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3D504E8C.4C0FD7BE@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:51:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] mips-n32 reg_struct_has_addr
References: <3D49EC2D.86CF5517@redhat.com> <3D504783.3060706@ges.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > + static int
> > + mips_newabi_reg_struct_has_addr (int gcc_p, struct type *type)
> > + {
> > +   enum type_code typecode = TYPE_CODE (check_typedef (type));
> > +   int len = TYPE_LENGTH (check_typedef (type));
> > +
> > +   if (typecode == TYPE_CODE_STRUCT   || typecode == TYPE_CODE_UNION)
> > +     return (len > MIPS_SAVED_REGSIZE && len % MIPS_SAVED_REGSIZE != 0);
> > +
> > +   return 0;
> > + }
> 
> No, I don't think this is right.  As best I can tell, there is no cap on
> the size of a struct that is passed by register.
> 
> http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi/srch3@o32/0650/bks/SGI_Developer/books/Mpro_n32_ABI/sgi_html/ch02.html#id80931
> 
> I.e., o32 and n32/n64 are the same -> never pass structures by reference.

OK, patch withdrawn, I will resubmit it using this assumption, 
just to get the gdbarch-ification checked in, and then we can
work on resolving how N32/64 should work.


> 
> > *************** mips_push_arguments (int nargs,
> > *** 2428,2448 ****
> >                           "mips_push_arguments: %d len=%d type=%d",
> >                           argnum + 1, len, (int) typecode);
> >
> > !       /* The EABI passes structures that do not fit in a register by
> 
> Per other e-mail, rather than modify the existing mips_push_argument()
> can you please created a dedicated mips_n32n64_push-arguments() function
> and hack on that.  That way, I don't have to worry about the other ABIs.
> 
> > +       /* Set up reg_struct_has_addr.  */
> > +       set_gdbarch_reg_struct_has_addr (gdbarch,
> 
> BTW, the comment here is redundant.
> 
> enjoy,
> Andrew