From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21373 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2003 19:38:03 -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 21359 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 19:38:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 19:38:02 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174C32B89; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F7DD019.3080102@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:38:00 -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: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc, rfa:doco] gdbarch return value References: <3F7C630B.1040506@redhat.com> <9743-Fri03Oct2003201110+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 > The doco part is okay with me, but I'd suggest to move this paragraph: > > +Given a function with a return-value of type @var{rettype}, return which > +return-value convention that function would use. > > right after these two lines: Yes. I was struggling with how to best order things. > +@item enum return_value_convention gdbarch_return_value (struct gdbarch *@var{gdbarch}, struct type *@var{valtype}, struct regcache *@var{regcache}, const void *@var{inval}, void *@var{outval}) > +@findex gdbarch_return_value > > since it describes what the method does, while the rest explains more > about the matter. > thanks, Andrew