From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31771 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2003 20:05:13 -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 31755 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2003 20:05:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.0.121) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 2003 20:05:07 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246AA2B89; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F88626B.9000702@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:05:00 -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: Elena Zannoni , vinschen@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c (sh_use_struct_convention): Restructure and fix References: <20031004113939.GK11435@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3F7EED21.1060902@redhat.com> <20031004180852.GA29063@cygbert.vinschen.de> <16261.50096.713531.701890@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00412.txt.bz2 > Hmm, I think you guys are all getting worked up for nothing, really. > Rereading the thread, I think Andrew was referring to a different way > to implement this set of ABI related functions, so that it would > become easier to do something else that Corinna had posted earlier, > namely supporting the Renesas ABI based on the current function, > i.e. here: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-09/msg00524.html > > To do what needed, we would have to pass the function address as > parameter to these sh-tdep.c functions. If we tighten the lot into > fewer methods, then there are less things to change. So at this > point, what is still unresolved is whether or not somebody is going to > do the work, i.e. add an automatic mechanism to detect the abi. > > If not, what Andrew is suggesting is not a priority. > If yes, it will need to be done. Yes. Andrew