From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32353 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2004 20:30:25 -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 32330 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2004 20:30:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2004 20:30:24 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SKUNKI012370 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:30:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3SKUIv14855; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:30:18 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834842B9D; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4090145D.7040100@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:30:00 -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: Randolph Chung Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfa] fix call-dummies for hppa References: <20040424190231.GC2923@tausq.org> <408FD0E7.3000300@gnu.org> <20040428155803.GN3965@tausq.org> In-Reply-To: <20040428155803.GN3965@tausq.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2 >>> Which compilers? I'm suspicious of GCC - it too often gets struct >>> parameters and return values internally consistent but wrong :-( > > > gcc only; I don't have access to the hp compilers. However, Dave > (the hppa gcc maintainer) is quite careful about these things, so I > think they are correct ;-) > > >>> Be careful of white space change, this shouldn't be included. If you >>> want to fix some indention just do it separatly. > > > ok, there were some stray tabs in the file so i was cleaning them up > along the way, but i'll remove that from this diff. > > >>> (I've now got a copy of the 32-bit ABI but it doesn't help much) > > > this is the som runtime doc? it's not particularly clear about small > structs..... yes. the 64-bit one is much better. >>> the comment doesn't match the assignment. >>> >> >>>> >+ /* The first parameter goes into sp-36, each stack slot is 4-bytes. >>>> >*/ >>>> >+ CORE_ADDR param_ptr = 32; > > > it does, actually, because the param_ptr is incremented by 4 for each > argument, so the first one goes to 36. ok, just expand the comment to clarify this. >>>> >+ else if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_FLT) >>>> >+ { >> >>> >>> more comments (the rest is well commented), ``&& TYPE_LENGTH () == 4'' >>> test needed? >>> >> >>>> >+ param_len = align_up (TYPE_LENGTH (type), 4); >>>> >+ memcpy (param_val, VALUE_CONTENTS (arg), param_len); > > > yes, this bit is wrong. i found some more bugs in this function. will > send a new version with the whitespace changes removed and comments > added. With a comment tweak, ok to commit. Andrew