From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14262 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2003 19:56:56 -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 14255 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 19:56:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 19:56:56 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883DC2A9C; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:56:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E6CEE02.10005@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Add e500 function call support to PPC References: <3E6A4068.9000506@redhat.com> <1030309005725.ZM21224@localhost.localdomain> <3E6CAB16.10607@redhat.com> <1030310175404.ZM3626@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 > On Mar 10, 10:11am, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> > This construct bothers me. If it occurred only once, it might not >> > bother me so much, but (arch_info->mach != bfd_mach_ppc_e500) appears >> > far too often in the code for me to be comfortable with it. Suppose >> > we have another core with a similar property (of passing everything >> > in GPRs). If this happens, we'll end up with a proliferation of >> > additional checks for all of these different cores and things will >> > become quite unreadable. Please introduce a predicate into which >> > we can put this test and perhaps others as they arise. Then, only >> > the predicate will need to be modified. > >> >> Such as: >> >> if (..... >> && tdep->ppc_fp0_regnum >= 0) >> >> ? > > > If the ppc's tdep struct had such a member that would probably be okay. It currently doesn't. However, it occured to me that it should be added anyway. There is nothing indicating to the shared PPC code that the e500 doesn't have FPRs. Andrew