From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4705 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2004 14:25:03 -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 4698 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2004 14:25:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2004 14:25:02 -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 i3UEP2KI006544 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:25:02 -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 i3UEP1v24716; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:25:01 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE28A2B9D; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:25:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <409261BF.8010605@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:25:00 -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/rfc/hppa] handle setting gp for calling shlib functions References: <20040429062324.GX3965@tausq.org> <40910D4F.1020700@gnu.org> <20040429150704.GZ3965@tausq.org> <409126FD.3080708@gnu.org> <20040429161357.GA3965@tausq.org> <409131F2.5040706@gnu.org> <20040430040417.GC3965@tausq.org> In-Reply-To: <20040430040417.GC3965@tausq.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00705.txt.bz2 >>The function/variable is (well was, it appears to have fallen off the >>> radar for the moment) also wanted for a second reason. When it comes to >>> implementing ABI variants the full function type info is needed. Hence, >>> a ``struct value'' function descriptor (or descriptor pointer / type) >>> are going to eventually be needed anyway. Hence, I think an updated >>> push-dummy-call with the new parameter would be better. > > > i can certainly try to look into this, but in lieu of the above (at > least in the meantime) would it be ok if i stash the func descriptor > passed into convert_from_func_ptr_addr into a "cache" in the > tdep structure, and in push_dummy_call check the passed in funcaddr > against the cached value? Er, no, we're going to fix it. Andrew