From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30385 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2004 20:56:10 -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 30373 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2004 20:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2004 20:56:08 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4CE2B9D; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <407EF6E4.3000306@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Work around GCC compiler bugs in frame.c References: <200404151637.i3FGbDHm000410@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200404151637.i3FGbDHm000410@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00328.txt.bz2 > I've always considered functions return a struct (as opposed to a > pointer to a struct) bad programming style, but now I know why. The > following code in frame.c triggers a bug in the system compiler on > OpenBSD/vax (which is basically GCC 2.95.3 with some local patches): > > && frame_id_eq (get_frame_id (this_frame), > get_frame_id (this_frame->next)) Would introducing frame_eq(), frame_inner() be more robust? Either way you'll likely want to add a comment. Andrew (I knew that there had been a bug but no one I asked could remember or demonstrate it.).