From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Randolph Chung <tausq@debian.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/resend/rfa] (1/4) Cleanup static function usage in hppa-tdep.c
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:04:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <407EB290.3000900@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040414062438.GJ31873@tausq.org>
> 2004-04-13 Randolph Chung <tausq@debian.org>
>
> * hppa-tdep.c (hppa_reg_struct_has_addr, hppa_skip_prologue,
> hppa_skip_trampoline_code, hppa_in_solib_call_trampoline,
> hppa_in_solib_return_trampoline, hppa_cannot_store_register,
> hppa_smash_text_address, hppa_target_read_pc, hppa_target_write_pc):
> Remove forward declaration and make static.
> (hppa_reg_struct_has_addr): Rename to hppa_use_struct_convention.
> (hppa_gdbarch_init): Set use_struct_convention.
>
> Index: hppa-tdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/hppa-tdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.143
> diff -u -p -r1.143 hppa-tdep.c
> --- hppa-tdep.c 11 Apr 2004 04:20:51 -0000 1.143
> +++ hppa-tdep.c 14 Apr 2004 05:01:21 -0000
> @@ -121,17 +123,8 @@ static void internalize_unwinds (struct
> static void record_text_segment_lowaddr (bfd *, asection *, void *);
> /* FIXME: brobecker 2002-11-07: We will likely be able to make the
> following functions static, once we hppa is partially multiarched. */
> -int hppa_reg_struct_has_addr (int gcc_p, struct type *type);
> -CORE_ADDR hppa_skip_prologue (CORE_ADDR pc);
> -CORE_ADDR hppa_skip_trampoline_code (CORE_ADDR pc);
> -int hppa_in_solib_call_trampoline (CORE_ADDR pc, char *name);
> -int hppa_in_solib_return_trampoline (CORE_ADDR pc, char *name);
> int hppa_pc_requires_run_before_use (CORE_ADDR pc);
> int hppa_instruction_nullified (void);
> -int hppa_cannot_store_register (int regnum);
> -CORE_ADDR hppa_smash_text_address (CORE_ADDR addr);
> -CORE_ADDR hppa_target_read_pc (ptid_t ptid);
> -void hppa_target_write_pc (CORE_ADDR v, ptid_t ptid);
Yes, definitly, avoid the duplication (these date back to pre ISO-C days).
Just not this:
> -int
> -hppa_reg_struct_has_addr (int gcc_p, struct type *type)
> +static int
> +hppa_use_struct_convention (int gcc_p, struct type *type)
> + set_gdbarch_use_struct_convention (gdbarch, hppa_use_struct_convention);
> +
use_struct_convention shouldn't be needed -> "struct_return" provides a
superset of its functionality. I suspect that the function
reg_struct_has_addr can instead simply be removed?
Minus use_struct_convention, it's ok to commit,
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-15 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-14 6:24 Randolph Chung
2004-04-15 16:04 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2004-04-17 16:23 ` Randolph Chung
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=407EB290.3000900@gnu.org \
--to=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=tausq@debian.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox