From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8286 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2002 23:12:00 -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 8278 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 23:11:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 23:11:57 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3523CE1; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:11:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DCAF33E.2010203@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:12:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Address FIXME in i386-tdep.c:i386_extract_struct_value_address References: <200210261441.g9QEff6t004409@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3DBACF7C.4010403@redhat.com> <200210271625.g9RGP9ks005560@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:23:08 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > > We know for sure here that we're not dealing with a cooked register. > > That's what you think :-) It's more correct here to use the cooked > interface. > > Care to enlighten me? Is it that one should always use the cooked > interface, except in code that's present to support the cooked > interface in the first place? Yes. ABI code (such as that finding the location of the struct return pointer) interacts with the cooked interface. That way, nothing (except the code to map cooked registers onto raw registers and/or memory) knows exactly how the underlying registers are implemented. Andrew