From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-24732-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 12681 invoked by alias); 30 May 2003 21:33:31 -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 12634 invoked from network); 30 May 2003 21:33:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 May 2003 21:33:30 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BA0DC2B2F; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:33:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3ED7CE26.9080508@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:33:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
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: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>,
	GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA]: gdbarch FETCH_POINTER_ARGUMENT
References: <3EC84B9A.8030505@doc.com> <3ECA8AF1.10001@redhat.com> <3ECD2201.5040306@redhat.com> <3ED6CA78.9010109@doc.com> <3ED7B064.3020708@redhat.com> <20030530201903.GA18029@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00575.txt.bz2

> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:26:28PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>> >Here's an updated patch. The more I looked at the "struct type *type" 
>> >argument, the less I understood about how it should be used. I assume it 
>> >would only be used, so far, on i386, but I'm easily confused by stacks and 
>> >registers (and how things are stored there), so any pointers would be 
>> >appreciated.
> 
>> 
>> The patch is almost fine.  Change it to `F' instead of `f' - so that a 
>> predicate is also available.
>> 
>> For some background, see: Pointers Are Not Always Addresses
>> http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_9.html#SEC71
>> 
>> The d10v is an example.
> 
> 
> Shouldn't TYPE be used?  I guess I'm not understanding why you wanted
> it to be there...

Strictly speaking POINTER_TO_ADDRESS should be used.  The only targets 
that absolutly need this though are the d10v and avr (which weren't 
modified).

Andrew