From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27906 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2003 14:11:56 -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 27899 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2003 14:11:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.0.121) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2003 14:11:55 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A62E2B89; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F64772A.2030207@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA/RFC] Replecament for DEPRECATED_REG_STRUCT_HAS_ADDR References: <200309141313.h8EDD3um071823@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 > Here is the promised patch to replace DEPRECATED_REG_STRUCT_HAS_ADDR. > I've baptized the new method stabs_argument_has_addr since that better like it. > describes what it does than the old REG_STRUCT_HAS_ADDR; it's also > used for non-register and non-struct arguments, at least on SPARC. I > also dropped the gcc_p argument since none of the current > implementations of DEPRECATED_REG_STRUCT_HAS_ADDR actually use it. > > Anyway, I moved the type checks that were done in stabsread.c into > default_stabs_argument_has_addr. This means that > stabs_argument_has_addr has to do all type-checks. On SPARC this is > needed to support quad-precision floating-point arguments. > > Andrew, I made stabs_argument_has_addr a multi-arch function, and I > don't provide a macro for it. Is that all-right? I'm a bit confused > when to provide a macro and when not. What are your current ideas > about that? Personally I think we should get rid of the macros and > explicitly use current_gdbarch. Yep, thats the intent. Andrew